io.github.Techmatic-sys/indiamart-mcp-server
version 1.1.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/Techmatic-sys/indiamart-mcp-server
- commit d124c394288d
- transport unknown
- files read 43
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
No tag matching version 1.1.0 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
89
43measured on 35% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source: requirements.txt does not pin every requirement to one exact version, so dependency versions are unresolved and no vulnerability can be attributed
30measured on 70% of this axis
58
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Code Safety
- saas/frontend/sw.js:151mcp-js-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part is caller-supplied the server can be aimed at internal hosts it can reach and the caller cannot.
if (cached) return cached; try { const response = await fetch(request); if (response.ok) { const cache = await caches.open(STATIC_CACHE); - saas/frontend/sw.js:164mcp-js-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part is caller-supplied the server can be aimed at internal hosts it can reach and the caller cannot.
async function networkFirstApi(request) { try { const response = await fetch(request); if (response.ok) { const cache = await caches.open(API_CACHE); - saas/frontend/sw.js:182mcp-js-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part is caller-supplied the server can be aimed at internal hosts it can reach and the caller cannot.
async function networkFirstPage(request) { try { return await fetch(request); } catch (e) { const cached = await caches.match(request);
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
the registry entry declares no transport, so `03` §4's stdio carve-out cannot be applied either way
- transport_security
the registry entry declares no transport for any package or remote
- secret_handling
Twilio API Key at saas/.env.example:36; …and 10 more matches
- authorization_granularity
10 tool registrations with conditional access logic present in the same source
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 193 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
lifetime median (1 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 24.7 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
this repository publishes neither releases nor version tags
- bus_factor
no author reached `03` §5's 5-commit bar in the last 12 months (1 contributor(s) with fewer) — scored at §5's weakest described band, which the section defines for a quiet sole maintainer
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; identified as 'MIT' from its text
- readme_quality
README.md: installation instructions (+25), configuration documented (+25), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- changelog
CHANGELOG.md present
- security_contact
no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.