Prompt To MCP Server

prompt-to-mcp PyPI v0.1.1

Published by an unidentified publisher — no publish provenance and no public repository, so the publisher could not be verified and the source cannot be independently located.

Trust grade
A
95/100
Last scanned get badge →
Trust
A · 95/100
Adoption risk for you: the threat score, then adjusted down for blast radius, publisher verification and how much the scan could see. Deterministic; every point is auditable.
Capability
Moderate
Blast radius if it went rogue — what the server’s tools could reach. Independent of trust.
Coverage
Source
How much the scan could actually inspect. Shallow coverage is stated, never hidden.
A Why this grade threat 100 − adoption risk = 95/100

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 − 5 = 95. 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:

PointsAdoption-risk factor
−3 capability blast radius (moderate) — client exposure if the model is manipulated
−2 publisher verification (unlinked) — no provenance/repo link, but the shipped source was fully read

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 3

medium Untrusted input can drive an external actionMTC-FLOW-005

Untrusted-input tools ([get_session_info]) co-exist with external-action tools ([webhook_endpoint_tool]). A prompt injection could cause unwanted external actions, though no direct sensitive-data leak path was found.

Evidence: untrusted [get_session_info] → sinks [webhook_endpoint_tool]

Fix: Require confirmation for state-changing/egress actions triggered after processing untrusted content.

Location: flow get_session_info → webhook_endpoint_tool

low Dynamic code execution in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_respfilter.py)MTC-SRC-001

In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_respfilter.py:98`): Evaluating strings as code is the most direct RCE primitive; if any tool input reaches it, the server executes attacker-chosen code. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.

Evidence: ) ns: dict = {} exec(compile(src, "filters.py", "exec"), ns) # noqa: S102 - trusted template gen_apply = ns

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_respfilter.py

low Shell/command execution in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_respfilter.py)MTC-SRC-002

In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_respfilter.py:98`): 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: ) ns: dict = {} exec(compile(src, "filters.py", "exec"), ns) # noqa: S102 - trusted template gen_apply = ns

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_respfilter.py

Tools 31

Each tool and what it can reach — statically extracted from the published source.

  • get_session_infoingests untrusted input
  • webhook_endpoint_toolnetwork egress
  • agent_task_managerno sensitive capability
  • balance_overviewno sensitive capability
  • connect_account_toolno sensitive capability
  • create_petno sensitive capability
  • customer_lookupno sensitive capability
  • customer_manageno sensitive capability
  • get_petno sensitive capability
  • get_repository_overviewno sensitive capability
Show 21 more tools ↓
  • get_store_inventoryno sensitive capability
  • handle_payment_intentno sensitive capability
  • invoice_lookupno sensitive capability
  • invoice_manageno sensitive capability
  • invoice_workflowno sensitive capability
  • list_pet_ordersno sensitive capability
  • list_petsno sensitive capability
  • manage_customerno sensitive capability
  • manage_issuesno sensitive capability
  • manage_pull_requestsno sensitive capability
  • manage_repository_filesno sensitive capability
  • manage_workflow_runsno sensitive capability
  • price_managementno sensitive capability
  • product_managementno sensitive capability
  • refund_handlingno sensitive capability
  • refund_lookupno sensitive capability
  • refund_manageno sensitive capability
  • report_run_toolno sensitive capability
  • search_githubno sensitive capability
  • subscription_managementno sensitive capability
  • view_security_alertsno sensitive capability

Toxic flows 1

Cross-tool combinations that form a data-exfiltration primitive (untrusted input → sensitive source → external sink).

What this scan could not see

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.

VersionScoreFindingsEngineScanned
v0.1.1 latest A 95/100 3 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.

MCP Trust Score: A · 95/100
Markdown (GitHub README)
[![MCP Trust Score](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/prompt-to-mcp/badge.svg)](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/prompt-to-mcp)
HTML
<a href="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/prompt-to-mcp"><img src="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/prompt-to-mcp/badge.svg" alt="MCP Trust Score" height="20"></a>
Prefer shields.io styling? Point it at https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/prompt-to-mcp/badge.json via https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=…

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 prompt-to-mcp --online --registry pypi

Use the free API → How scoring works

More in Developer Tools