Evaluation report

• Repository is reachable

  https://github.com/CCCpan/data-verify-mcp @ 994e7ea — ★ 166 · TypeScript · MIT · last push 3 months ago

• Manifest detected

  kind=mcp slug=data-verify-mcp · source=package.json

• Slug is URL-safe

  "data-verify-mcp" matches /^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{0,62}$/

• Slug is unique within kind

  No collision found for mcp/data-verify-mcp

• Version is semver

  1.0.2

• Description quality

  16 words · 116 chars — "MCP Server for identity verification, enterprise check, vehicle query, OCR recog…"

• README is present and substantial

  8,396 chars · 8 sections · 16 code blocks

• Tags / topics declared

  16 total — mcp, mcp-server, identity-verification, enterprise-check, ocr, risk-assessment (+10)

• README has usage / example sections

  no labeled section but 16 code blocks document usage

• Homepage / docs URL declared

  https://www.xdhdancer.top

• Dependencies: known vulnerabilitieswarn

  3 high/critical advisories — @modelcontextprotocol/[email protected] (HIGH: GHSA-345p-7cg4-v4c7) · @modelcontextprotocol/[email protected] (HIGH: GHSA-8r9q-7v3j-jr4g) (+1)

  Update the affected packages, then re-publish. (`npm audit` shows the same data locally.)

• LICENSE file at repo root

  LICENSE

• No sensitive files in the repo

  scanned for .env, credentials.json, *.pem, .ssh/, AWS / GCP configs — none found

• MCP: launch path

  bin: data-verify-mcp · scripts.start

• MCP: @modelcontextprotocol/sdk in dependencies

  pinned at "^1.12.1"

• MCP: SDK version pinned

  pinned at "^1.12.1"

• MCP: ESM package

  "type": "module"

• MCP: 8 tools declared

  verify_identity, verify_phone_three, verify_bank_card, face_compare

• MCP: server surface

  8 tools

• Recent activitywarn

  last push 3 months ago — looks slowing down

  Consumers prefer artifacts that are actively maintained (threshold: 90 days, configurable via EVAL_RECENCY_PASS_DAYS).

• Tests detectedwarn

  no test/tests/__tests__/spec/t/ dirs, no JVM src/test/, and no JS/TS/Python/Go/Ruby/Elixir test files

  Add tests (even a smoke test). Consumers gauge maintenance quality by their presence.

• CI configuration detectedwarn

  no CI config found (looked for GitHub Actions, CircleCI, GitLab CI, etc.)

  Add a simple workflow (lint + test on PR) — it tells consumers the artifact is built reproducibly.

This artifact hasn't produced behavioral results yet: the evaluation sandbox couldn't run it (it may need credentials we don't provide, or a build our environment doesn't support). That's a limitation of our environment, not a verdict on the artifact.