xyz.draket/btcpay-mcp
version 0.3.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/ThomsenDrake/btcpay-mcp
- commit a87de3ba9549
- transport unknown
- files read 4
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
No tag matching version 0.3.0 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
100
not assessed
the registry entry declares no transport, so `03` §4's stdio carve-out cannot be applied either way
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
30measured on 45% 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.
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
detect-secrets matched 2 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Secret Keyword). Those flag placeholders, variable names and content hashes as readily as credentials, so they do not establish the committed credential `03` §4's 0 asserts, and this sub-check is not scored; Secret Keyword at README.md:31; Secret Keyword at tests/test_server.py:428
- authorization_granularity
21 tool registrations and no conditional access logic found — `03` §4 calls this case 'needs human review' and assigns it no score band, so it is not scored here
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 203 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
every issue read was filed by the project itself (1 by its maintainers or bots), so none is someone outside waiting for an answer, and `03` §5's question — will anyone read an issue I file? — has nothing to measure.
- release_cadence
this repository publishes neither releases nor version tags
- bus_factor
sole maintainer, and no commit in over 90 days
- 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.