Is Groundcheck MCP server safe?
Yes, with the usual care.
Passed every safety check we run. Maintained, authenticated, reachable, clean scan.
No critical or high findings in the latest scan.
How Groundcheck compares
Against every graded Scraping and browsing MCP server, from our own scans and uptime checks. Updated after each scan run.
- Safety score
- 91/100
- higher than 80% of 866 Scraping and browsing servers
- Tools that change things
- 0%
- typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break
- Uptime
- 100%
- of our recent checks; the typical remote Scraping and browsing server answers 100%
What its tools let an agent do: 5 read
Release history: 2 versions in the registry since 2026-08-16, latest 2026-10-01, typically one every 46 days.
Public scan report
scanner v0.1.10 · 2026-11-03 · same rubric, same numbers if you re-run it
1 low
- Code scan6 source files scanned25/25
- Live reliabilityremote reachable in 1467ms20/20
- Tool poisoning5 tool descriptions checked13/15
- Auth qualityopen endpoint, read-only tools10/15
- Maintenancelast push 3 days ago15/15
- Maintainer identityregistry namespace matches repository owner; GitHub account older than a year8/10
Findings (1)
- lowUnusually long tool description (over 2,000 characters)
poison.long-descriptiontool attest_delivery: …PURPOSE: Neutral delivery verification for agentic commerce. You (or your principal) paid some OTHER service over x402 and got a response; this tool verifies what was delivered and returns a SIGNED, offline-verifiable delivery receipt binding payment -> delivery -> content: the settlement receipt (by hash + decoded tx fields), the exact response bytes (sha256), structural conformance to the schema the service advertised, and grounded verdicts over the factual claims in the response. Returns delivery_verdict (consistent | degraded | inconsistent | unverifiable) with a rationale. GUIDELINES: Call AFTER a paid third-party call whose output you will act on or account for — data enrichment you bought, research you commissioned, any x402 purchase your principal will audit. Branch on delivery_verdict: 'consistent' -> proceed; 'degraded' -> use with caution, flag the refuted claims; 'inconsistent' -> do not rely on the delivery, keep the receipt as dispute evidence; 'unverifiable' -> nothing contradicted but nothing confirmed. Save the full response JSON — it is a self-contained dispute artifact verifiable offline months later (GET /attest/pubkey documents how). PARAMETERS: service — URL/name of the paid service. response_text — the delivered payload, verbatim. request_text (optional) — what was asked. payment_receipt (optional) — the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE value from the paid call. advertised_schema (optional) — the JSON schema the service advertised. max_claims — 1..20, default 8. LIMITATIONS: Judges CONSISTENCY (as-advertised, not contradicted), never service quality. Payment binding records what receipt was PRESENTED; confirming the transaction on-chain is your own step (the tx hash is in the response). Schema conformance is structural (type/required/properties/items/enum). Content checking has the same source-coverage limits as verify_claim. Paid per call (x402). EXAMPLE: attest_delivery({"service": "https://api.vendor.xyz/enrich", "response_text": "{\"name\": \"APPLE INC\"}", "payment_receipt": "<X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE>", "advertised_schema": {"type": "object", "required": ["name"]}}) -> {delivery_verdict: 'consistent', payment: {bound: true, transaction: '0x…'}, attestation: {…}}…
Overall 91/100. Components that don't apply are left out of the denominator. Any critical finding is an F.RubricAppeal a findingJSON
Other servers that do what Groundcheck does
- PlumbTwo-way Figma MCP: extract + verify design-to-code, or generate on-brand Figma pages from a prompt.not reviewedGrowingC
- BrightdataBright Data's Web MCP server enabling AI agents to search, extract & navigate the webnot reviewedEstablishedB
- Browser UseBrowser agents and stealth cloud browsers for AI: run web tasks, fill forms, extract data.not reviewedEstablishedA