Should my agent depend on the MCP server com.papacasper/mcp-toolbelt?

Verdict: allow — stale-mid-fast-solo — safe to depend on As of 2026-09-06T06:21:45Z: a dated observation with receipts, not a warranty.

mcp-toolbelt

com.papacasper/mcp-toolbelt

29 pay-per-call DNS, SEO, SSL, security, and dev tools for AI agents. x402, no API key.

— the operator's own registry description reported

Publisher com.papacasper · first seen 2026-08-12 · endpoint https://papacasper.com/mcp

allow

verdict

stale-mid-fast-solo

cluster

ok_tools

answers

tools served

Dependency rating derived

allow
allow — alive & usable · retrieval-public ● · V3 has answer key ◐

allow — because answers ●, 29 tools legible (band A) ●, no confirmed drift in 6 probes ●; not yet checked: truth (1 attempts unverifiable, 0 disagreements)

Cluster stale-mid-fast-solo · distinctiveness 0.501 (moderate). Every figure is a percentile or class within the 15,472-server census — see the whole spectrum.

Does it answer? Q1 · observed

answersalive_tools

latency28 ms

vs populationfast

protocolstale

authopen

Can it be used? Q4 · observed

tools29

vs populationhigh

capabilities1

harnessA

Did it hold when checked? Q3–Q4 · derived

identitysolo

servers on its host1

verifiabilityunassessed

duplicate inventoryno

drift events0

answers true0/0 agree

🔏 Signed receipt rr_6762a8413f290f04a3e83da3 · ed25519 · key rs-rcpt-2026-08 — this rating is tamper-evident; an agent gets the full signature from check_server and can verify it against the published key.

Q1Does it answer?alive & usable — 6 probes ●evidence ↓

Q2What is it?retrieval-public ● evidence ↓

Q3Can it be checked?V3 has answer key ◐evidence ↓

Q4Did it hold?harness A · truth not yet run · no drift ●evidence ↓

Q5What company does it keep?stale-mid-fast-solo · 1 on its host (context, not verdict) ◐evidence ↓

● observed · ◐ derived · ○ reported — the verdict synthesizes Q1–Q4; Q5 is context. Methodology →

History observed

Every probe we made, oldest → newest (6 shown, 2026-08-12 → 2026-09-06). Green answered · amber answered-but-walled · red no useful answer. A gap in our cadence is a gap in coverage, not evidence about the server.

changelog (2 events)

date	type	what changed
2026-09-06	outcome	ok_tools (was http_error)
2026-08-12	outcome	first probe: http_error

What kind of tools these are derived

Verification only means something relative to a tool's NATURE — an email-sender has no "true answer", a generator has no answer key. Classification evidence: classified from tool names/descriptions/annotations WE OBSERVED. What checking applies to each kind (the full methodology →):

nature	tools	meaning	what checking applies
retrieval-public	21	serves public facts	truth-checkable against a public source — the V-ladder applies in full
action	6	changes the world	no true answer exists; we check the CONTRACT (destructive/read-only/idempotent declarations, error legibility) and never fire real actions
generative	2	creates content	no answer key exists; disclosure + stability checks, never truth verdicts

Tools last seen observed

ai_crawler_policy_check broken_link_check check_open_ports check_robots_sitemap cors_policy_check dns_propagation_check domain_availability_check domain_health_check domain_report email_address_validate email_deliverability_check favicon_manifest_check github_repo_health_check ip_geolocation_asn_lookup json_ld_schema_validator package_vulnerability_check page_performance_check pagespeed_insights redirect_chain_check safe_browsing_check security_headers_audit seo_audit sitemap_url_validator ssl_cert_check ssl_labs_grade structured_data_extract tech_stack_fingerprint url_to_markdown websocket_endpoint_check

Harness readiness observed

Can an agent's harness pick this tool and call it correctly? Graded on the three things an agent reads — name, description, typed parameters. Band A — an agent can pick and call these reliably.

legibility check	tools passing	ok
name is clear & specific	29/29	✓
has a description	29/29	✓
description is substantive	29/29	✓
parameters are typed	29/29	✓
parameters are described	29/29	✓

29 of 29 tools graded · 29 with a captured input schema. RS-008, Tier-1 — no domain knowledge, applies to any tool. “Alive” is not the same as “usable”.

Truth checks observed

Not yet confirmed — 1 attempt(s) currently unverifiable (rate limits, walls, or unmappable schemas — never counted against the server) · 0 disagreements.

claim class	key	verdict	primary source
tariff-duty	unmapped	unverifiable	us-hts

Protocol conformance observed

2024-11-05

protocol version

—

session model

1.0.0

server version mcp-toolbelt

Capabilities: tools

Drift observed

No confirmed drift on record. Baseline set 2026-09-06; changes appear here after human review.

raw probe records

probed (UTC)	outcome	http	ms	protocol
2026-09-06T06:12:47Z	ok_tools	200	28	2024-11-05
2026-08-30T06:12:29Z	http_error	404	34
2026-08-23T06:12:06Z	http_error	404	36
2026-08-16T06:11:55Z	http_error	404	43
2026-08-14T19:58:23Z	http_error	404	65
2026-08-12T05:33:38Z	http_error	404	94

Watch or embed this verdict

Operators: put the live verdict in your README — it updates with every census, links back here, and is a dated observation, never a warranty:

[![Robin Saige verdict](https://robinsaige.com/badge/com.papacasper/mcp-toolbelt.svg)](https://robinsaige.com/s/com.papacasper/mcp-toolbelt)

Depend on it? Subscribe to its change feed — outcome changes and confirmed drift, no account needed. Building on it? The full dossier as JSON — verdict, rating, truth checks, history — stable enough to gate CI on.

← overview

Operator of this server? Everything we hold about it is on this page — free, no account, for anyone. Wrong attribution, stale probe, misclassification? Dispute this record →