Jupyter Editor MCP Server
jupyter-editor-mcp
PyPI
v0.2.2
Published by jsamuel1 — no publish provenance, so origin is unverified, but the source is public: the repository link below is self-declared yet readable, so you can inspect the code before adopting it.
The grade answers one question — how safe is this server for you to adopt — so it is computed in two auditable stages. Nothing below is an opinion or an LLM's guess; every line is a real term the deterministic engine applied, and the same input always yields the same number.
1. Threat score — 100 − 0 = 100. What the published surface and source actually contain:
The deterministic scan raised no scored threat in the surface it inspected — the threat score stayed at 100. Capability observations and advisory notes are recorded but never lower it.
2. Client adoption risk — 100 − 1 = 99. Three small, subtract-only factors that reflect your risk in adopting it — a clean scan proves less on a powerful, unverified or barely-inspectable package, so the grade says so plainly:
| Points | Adoption-risk factor |
|---|---|
| −1 | publisher verification (public source) — no provenance, but the source is public and inspectable |
Capability observations and info notes are shown under Findings but never scored.
Open any row's finding below for the file, line and evidence behind a deduction.
Findings 2
low Shell/command execution in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_cli.py)MTC-SRC-002
In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_cli.py:138`): Spawning a shell/process is command-execution capability; with unsanitized tool input it is command injection / RCE. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.
Evidence: rocess result = subprocess.run( ['uv', 'run', 'jupyter-editor-mcp', '--help'], capture_o
Fix: Review this call path: confirm it never receives unsanitized tool input, constrain it, or remove it. Treat a server whose code reaches these sinks as high-capability regardless of what its tools claim.
Location: server tests/test_cli.py
low Shell/command execution in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_mcp_harness.py)MTC-SRC-002
In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_mcp_harness.py:31`): Spawning a shell/process is command-execution capability; with unsanitized tool input it is command injection / RCE. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.
Evidence: self.process = subprocess.Popen( cmd, stdin=subprocess.PIPE, st
Fix: Review this call path: confirm it never receives unsanitized tool input, constrain it, or remove it. Treat a server whose code reaches these sinks as high-capability regardless of what its tools claim.
Location: server tests/test_mcp_harness.py
Tools 29
Each tool and what it can reach — statically extracted from the published source.
ipynb_append_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_apply_to_notebooksno sensitive capabilityipynb_clear_outputsno sensitive capabilityipynb_delete_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_delete_cells_batchno sensitive capabilityipynb_extract_cellsno sensitive capabilityipynb_filter_cellsno sensitive capabilityipynb_get_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_get_metadatano sensitive capabilityipynb_get_notebook_infono sensitive capability
Show 19 more tools ↓
ipynb_insert_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_insert_cells_batchno sensitive capabilityipynb_list_available_kernelsno sensitive capabilityipynb_list_cellsno sensitive capabilityipynb_merge_notebooksno sensitive capabilityipynb_read_notebookno sensitive capabilityipynb_reorder_cellsno sensitive capabilityipynb_replace_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_replace_cells_batchno sensitive capabilityipynb_search_cellsno sensitive capabilityipynb_search_notebooksno sensitive capabilityipynb_search_replace_allno sensitive capabilityipynb_set_kernelno sensitive capabilityipynb_split_notebookno sensitive capabilityipynb_str_replace_in_cellno sensitive capabilityipynb_sync_metadatano sensitive capabilityipynb_update_metadatano sensitive capabilityipynb_validate_notebookno sensitive capabilityipynb_validate_notebooks_batchno sensitive capability
What this scan could not see
- Tools were statically extracted from the published source (29 recovered), not enumerated from a running server. Tool-poisoning, Unicode-smuggling, capability and toxic-flow analysis ran on this inferred surface, but a mis-parsed registration could be missed or mis-attributed, so tool-derived findings are capped below “confirmed”. To grade the real runtime surface, scan the running server: --command "npx -y <package>".
Versions 1
Scan history per published version. The engine is deterministic — the same version always yields the same score, so a changed score means the package itself changed.
| Version | Score | Findings | Engine | Scanned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
v0.2.2 latest |
A 99/100 | 2 | 1.9.0 | 2026-07-23 |
Embed this score
Show this server's live Trust Score in your README, docs or website. The badge is served straight from the registry and updates automatically after every rescan — no API key needed. It links back to this page, so anyone who sees the grade can also read the findings behind it instead of taking a number on faith.
Verify this score yourself
The score above is reproducible: the same package version always yields the same result. Run it locally or over the free API — no account, no LLM, fully deterministic.
npx mcptrustchecker scan jupyter-editor-mcp --online --registry pypiMore in Developer Tools
Security scan results for the 1stay MCP server.
Security scan results for the Adguard Home MCP server.
Security scan results for the Ado Browser MCP server.
Security scan results for the Adobe Experience Dev MCP server.
Security scan results for the Aemet MCP server.
Security scan results for the Affinity Mcp Bridge MCP server.