{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","slug":"mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","name":"pal-mcp-server","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/BeehiveInnovations/pal-mcp-server","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.multi.provider.model.orchestration.with.unified.abstraction.layer","name":"multi-provider model orchestration with unified abstraction layer","description":"Implements a ModelProviderRegistry pattern that abstracts 7+ distinct AI providers (Gemini, OpenAI, Azure, Grok, OpenRouter, DIAL, Ollama, custom endpoints) behind a single interface. Each provider implements a common contract with native API bindings, enabling seamless switching and fallback without client-side provider logic. The abstraction handles provider-specific authentication, request formatting, response normalization, and error handling through a registry-based dependency injection pattern.","intents":["I want to use multiple AI models from different providers without rewriting integration code for each one","I need automatic fallback to alternative models if my primary provider is unavailable or rate-limited","I want to compare outputs from different models on the same task without managing separate API clients"],"best_for":["teams building AI agents that need provider flexibility","developers migrating between model providers without code refactoring","organizations with multi-cloud or hybrid model strategies"],"limitations":["Provider-specific features (e.g., vision capabilities, function calling schemas) require conditional logic in client code","Token counting and cost estimation varies per provider — no unified metering","Rate limit handling is provider-specific; no cross-provider quota management"],"requires":["Python 3.9+","API keys for at least one provider (Gemini, OpenAI, Azure, Grok, OpenRouter, or Ollama)","Environment variables configured per provider setup docs"],"input_types":["text prompts","code snippets","structured JSON configuration"],"output_types":["text responses","structured JSON","streaming tokens"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","multi-provider-abstraction"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_1","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.stateless.conversation.threading.with.context.revival","name":"stateless conversation threading with context revival","description":"Maintains conversation continuity across MCP context resets using a continuation-based reconstruction pattern stored in _conversation_memory. When context is lost (e.g., token limits exceeded), the system reconstructs prior conversation state by replaying message history through reconstruct_thread_context() without requiring persistent external storage. This enables multi-turn workflows in stateless MCP environments where clients cannot maintain session state between requests.","intents":["I want to maintain conversation history across multiple MCP tool invocations without losing context","I need to resume a multi-step debugging or refactoring session after the LLM context window resets","I want to reference earlier conversation turns in new requests without manually copying history"],"best_for":["MCP client developers building multi-turn workflows","teams using Claude Code or Gemini CLI with long-running sessions","developers implementing context-aware code analysis tools"],"limitations":["Conversation memory is in-process only — lost on server restart; no persistence layer included","Reconstruction adds latency proportional to conversation length (replays all prior turns)","No built-in conversation pruning or summarization — memory grows unbounded with long sessions"],"requires":["MCP client that supports tool invocation with message history","Python 3.9+","Server running continuously (memory not persisted to disk)"],"input_types":["MCP tool requests with conversation context","message history arrays"],"output_types":["reconstructed conversation state","tool responses with full context"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_10","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.task.planning.and.workflow.decomposition","name":"task planning and workflow decomposition","description":"Provides a planner tool that decomposes complex development tasks into actionable steps with dependencies and resource requirements. The tool analyzes task descriptions, identifies prerequisites, estimates effort, and creates execution plans that can be executed sequentially or in parallel. It integrates with other tools (refactor, test generation, security audit) to create comprehensive workflows.","intents":["I want to break down a large feature into manageable implementation steps","I need to understand task dependencies before starting development","I want the AI to create a detailed execution plan for complex refactoring or migration tasks"],"best_for":["project managers and tech leads planning complex initiatives","developers tackling large-scale refactoring or migration projects","teams coordinating multi-person development efforts"],"limitations":["Plans are estimates — actual execution may differ based on unforeseen issues","Dependency analysis is based on task description; may miss implicit dependencies","No automatic plan adjustment based on execution results"],"requires":["Task description or requirements","Python 3.9+","Context about codebase and team capacity"],"input_types":["task descriptions","project context","constraints and requirements"],"output_types":["task decomposition with steps","dependency graph","effort estimates","execution plan"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_11","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.web.search.integration.for.context.enrichment","name":"web search integration for context enrichment","description":"Integrates web search capabilities into the MCP server, enabling tools to fetch current information, documentation, and examples from the internet. When analyzing code or generating solutions, tools can search for relevant documentation, API references, security advisories, and best practices. Search results are incorporated into model context to provide up-to-date information beyond the model's training data.","intents":["I want the AI to look up current API documentation when analyzing code","I need security advisories and vulnerability information for dependencies I'm using","I want the AI to find relevant Stack Overflow answers and best practices for my problem"],"best_for":["developers working with rapidly evolving APIs and frameworks","security teams tracking vulnerability advisories","teams needing current best practices and documentation"],"limitations":["Web search adds latency to tool execution (1-3 seconds per search)","Search result quality depends on query formulation — poor queries yield irrelevant results","No caching of search results — repeated searches re-fetch from web"],"requires":["Web search API (Google, Bing, or custom search engine)","API key for search service","Python 3.9+","Internet connectivity"],"input_types":["search queries (auto-generated or user-specified)","code snippets or API names"],"output_types":["search results (URLs, snippets, documentation)","integrated context for model analysis"],"categories":["search-retrieval","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_12","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.execution.tracing.and.debugging.with.step.by.step.inspection","name":"execution tracing and debugging with step-by-step inspection","description":"Provides a tracer tool that captures detailed execution traces of code execution, including function calls, variable states, and control flow. The tool instruments code or integrates with debuggers to collect execution data, then presents it to AI models for analysis. This enables AI-assisted debugging where the model can inspect execution traces and identify root causes of bugs.","intents":["I want the AI to analyze my code's execution trace to identify the root cause of a bug","I need to understand the control flow and variable states at each step of execution","I want the AI to suggest fixes based on actual execution behavior, not just static analysis"],"best_for":["developers debugging complex or non-deterministic issues","teams analyzing performance bottlenecks","developers learning how their code executes"],"limitations":["Execution tracing adds significant overhead (5-10x slower execution)","Traces can be very large for long-running code — may exceed context limits","Tracing requires code to be executable in the analysis environment"],"requires":["Executable code or test case","Python 3.9+","Debugger or instrumentation framework (pdb, sys.settrace, etc.)"],"input_types":["code files","test cases or reproduction steps","execution parameters"],"output_types":["execution trace (function calls, variable states)","control flow visualization","AI analysis and bug identification","fix suggestions"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_13","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.pre.commit.hook.integration.for.automated.code.quality.checks","name":"pre-commit hook integration for automated code quality checks","description":"Provides a precommit tool that integrates with Git pre-commit hooks to run automated code quality checks before commits. The tool can execute code review, security audit, test generation, and other analysis tools on staged changes, blocking commits that fail quality gates. It provides fast feedback to developers and prevents low-quality code from entering the repository.","intents":["I want to automatically run code quality checks before commits","I need to enforce security standards and prevent vulnerable code from being committed","I want to ensure all code has tests before it's merged"],"best_for":["teams with strict code quality standards","projects requiring security compliance","developers seeking immediate feedback on code quality"],"limitations":["Pre-commit checks add latency to commit workflow (5-30 seconds per commit)","False positives can block legitimate commits — requires tuning","Requires Git repository and pre-commit hook configuration"],"requires":["Git repository","Python 3.9+","Pre-commit hook framework (pre-commit package or custom hooks)","PAL MCP server running"],"input_types":["staged Git changes","file diffs"],"output_types":["quality check results","pass/fail decision","detailed feedback on issues"],"categories":["automation-workflow","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_14","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.debug.tool.with.interactive.problem.diagnosis","name":"debug tool with interactive problem diagnosis","description":"Provides a debug tool that helps diagnose and fix code issues through interactive analysis. The tool accepts error messages, stack traces, or problem descriptions, then uses AI reasoning to identify root causes and suggest fixes. It can integrate with execution traces and code context to provide targeted debugging assistance.","intents":["I want the AI to help me understand and fix an error I'm seeing","I have a stack trace and want to know what went wrong and how to fix it","I need help debugging a complex issue that I don't understand"],"best_for":["developers debugging unfamiliar code or frameworks","teams troubleshooting production issues","developers learning from error analysis"],"limitations":["AI analysis is limited to information provided — may miss context","Suggested fixes are recommendations; may not work without code changes","Complex issues may require multiple debugging iterations"],"requires":["Error message, stack trace, or problem description","Python 3.9+","Code context (files, function signatures)"],"input_types":["error messages","stack traces","problem descriptions","code snippets"],"output_types":["root cause analysis","fix suggestions","code patches","prevention recommendations"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_15","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.api.documentation.lookup.and.integration","name":"api documentation lookup and integration","description":"Provides an API lookup tool that searches and retrieves API documentation for libraries, frameworks, and services used in code. The tool can identify API calls in code, fetch relevant documentation, and provide context to models for code generation and analysis. It supports multiple documentation sources (official docs, OpenAPI specs, type definitions) and integrates with web search for current information.","intents":["I want the AI to look up API documentation for a library I'm using","I need to understand the correct parameters and return types for an API call","I want the AI to generate code using the correct API based on current documentation"],"best_for":["developers working with unfamiliar APIs and libraries","teams integrating multiple third-party services","developers needing accurate API usage examples"],"limitations":["API lookup requires identifying which APIs are being used — may miss implicit calls","Documentation quality varies across libraries — some lack comprehensive docs","API changes between versions may cause outdated information"],"requires":["Code files or API names","Python 3.9+","Web search API for documentation lookup"],"input_types":["code snippets with API calls","library or API names","function signatures"],"output_types":["API documentation","parameter specifications","return type information","usage examples"],"categories":["search-retrieval","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.protocol.server.with.tool.discovery.and.invocation","name":"mcp protocol server with tool discovery and invocation","description":"Implements the Model Context Protocol as a stdio-based JSON-RPC server (Server('pal-server') in server.py) that exposes a registry of 10+ specialized tools for code analysis, debugging, and development workflows. The server handles tool discovery (listing available tools with schemas), parameter validation, and invocation routing through a unified TOOLS registry. Clients like Claude Code and Gemini CLI discover tools via MCP initialization and invoke them with structured parameters, receiving results back through the MCP protocol.","intents":["I want Claude Code or Gemini CLI to have access to specialized code analysis and refactoring tools","I need to expose custom development workflows as callable tools in my AI IDE","I want to integrate PAL tools into multiple AI clients without duplicating tool implementations"],"best_for":["AI IDE users (Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code Claude Dev) extending tool capabilities","developers building custom MCP servers for code-centric workflows","teams standardizing on MCP for AI tool integration"],"limitations":["Tool execution is synchronous — long-running tools block the MCP server","No built-in tool result caching — repeated tool calls re-execute","Tool schemas must be manually defined; no automatic schema generation from Python signatures"],"requires":["MCP-compatible client (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code Claude Dev)","Python 3.9+","Server running as stdio subprocess (configured in client settings)"],"input_types":["MCP initialize requests","tool invocation requests with structured parameters","file paths and code snippets"],"output_types":["tool list with JSON schemas","tool execution results (text, structured data)","error responses"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.intelligent.model.fallback.and.auto.selection","name":"intelligent model fallback and auto-selection","description":"Implements an auto-mode strategy that selects the best available model based on task requirements, provider availability, and cost/performance tradeoffs. When a primary model is unavailable (rate-limited, API down, quota exceeded), the system automatically falls back to alternative providers without user intervention. The fallback logic considers model capabilities (vision, function calling, reasoning depth) and provider-specific constraints, routing requests intelligently across the provider registry.","intents":["I want my AI workflow to continue working even if my primary model provider is down","I need the system to automatically choose the cheapest or fastest model that can handle my task","I want to define fallback chains (e.g., try GPT-4, then Claude, then Gemini) without manual switching"],"best_for":["production AI systems requiring high availability","cost-conscious teams optimizing model spend across providers","developers building resilient agent systems"],"limitations":["Fallback logic is provider-specific; no unified cost/latency metrics across providers","Auto-selection requires pre-configured model capability metadata — manual setup per model","No learning from past fallback decisions — selection strategy is static"],"requires":["Multiple provider API keys configured","Model configuration files defining capabilities and fallback chains","Python 3.9+"],"input_types":["task requirements (e.g., 'needs vision', 'needs function calling')","model configuration JSON"],"output_types":["selected model provider and model name","fallback chain execution results"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_4","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.code.review.and.analysis.with.multi.model.consensus","name":"code review and analysis with multi-model consensus","description":"Provides a consensus tool that invokes multiple AI models on the same code review task and synthesizes their outputs into a unified recommendation. Each model analyzes code independently, and the consensus engine identifies agreement patterns, flags disagreements, and produces a final review that incorporates diverse perspectives. This reduces false positives from single-model analysis and improves review quality by leveraging model diversity.","intents":["I want code reviews that consider multiple AI perspectives to reduce bias and false positives","I need to validate critical code changes with consensus from different models before merging","I want to understand where different models agree or disagree on code quality issues"],"best_for":["teams with high code quality standards","open-source projects seeking diverse review perspectives","developers validating security-critical code"],"limitations":["Consensus tool invokes N models sequentially — latency scales with model count and response time","No weighting of model opinions — all models treated equally regardless of accuracy history","Consensus synthesis is rule-based; no learning from past review accuracy"],"requires":["Multiple provider API keys (at least 2 models)","Code file or snippet as input","Python 3.9+"],"input_types":["code snippets or file paths","review context (e.g., PR description, file type)"],"output_types":["individual model reviews (structured)","consensus summary with agreement/disagreement analysis","unified recommendations"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_5","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.deep.reasoning.and.chain.of.thought.execution","name":"deep reasoning and chain-of-thought execution","description":"Implements a ThinkDeep tool that leverages extended thinking modes (where supported by models like Claude with extended thinking) to enable step-by-step reasoning for complex problems. The tool routes requests to models with reasoning capabilities, captures intermediate reasoning steps, and returns both the reasoning trace and final answer. This enables transparent, auditable AI decision-making for tasks like architecture design, debugging strategies, and security analysis.","intents":["I want to see the AI's reasoning steps when solving complex debugging or architecture problems","I need transparent, auditable decision-making for security-critical code analysis","I want the AI to think through edge cases before generating code or recommendations"],"best_for":["security-conscious teams analyzing sensitive code","developers debugging complex system issues","architects designing critical system components"],"limitations":["Extended thinking is only supported by specific models (Claude with extended thinking) — fallback models may not provide reasoning traces","Reasoning traces add significant latency (2-5x longer than standard inference)","Token usage for reasoning is higher — impacts cost and rate limits"],"requires":["Model with extended thinking support (Claude 3.5 Sonnet or later with extended thinking enabled)","API key for supported provider","Python 3.9+"],"input_types":["complex problem descriptions","code snippets requiring deep analysis","architectural questions"],"output_types":["reasoning trace (step-by-step thinking)","final answer/recommendation","structured analysis"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_6","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.automated.test.generation.from.code.context","name":"automated test generation from code context","description":"Provides a test generation tool that analyzes code files and generates unit tests with full context awareness. The tool extracts function signatures, dependencies, and existing test patterns, then generates tests that match the codebase's testing conventions. It supports multiple testing frameworks (pytest, unittest, Jest, etc.) and can generate tests for specific functions or entire modules.","intents":["I want to generate unit tests for legacy code that lacks test coverage","I need tests that follow my project's existing testing patterns and conventions","I want to quickly create test stubs for new functions before implementation"],"best_for":["teams improving test coverage on legacy codebases","developers accelerating test-driven development workflows","projects with established testing conventions"],"limitations":["Generated tests may not cover all edge cases — require manual review and enhancement","Test quality depends on code clarity and existing test examples in the codebase","Complex mocking scenarios may require manual setup"],"requires":["Code file or directory path","Python 3.9+","Testing framework installed (pytest, unittest, Jest, etc.)"],"input_types":["code files or directories","function names or test scope","testing framework specification"],"output_types":["generated test files","test code snippets","test coverage analysis"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_7","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.code.refactoring.with.multi.step.transformation","name":"code refactoring with multi-step transformation","description":"Provides a refactor tool that breaks down complex refactoring tasks into multiple steps, executing transformations incrementally while validating each step. The tool can handle large-scale refactorings (e.g., renaming across multiple files, extracting functions, modernizing syntax) by decomposing them into smaller, testable changes. It integrates with the planner tool to create refactoring strategies before execution.","intents":["I want to refactor a large codebase without breaking functionality","I need to modernize legacy code patterns across multiple files systematically","I want to extract common functionality into reusable components with validation at each step"],"best_for":["teams modernizing legacy codebases","developers performing large-scale code transformations","projects with strict quality gates requiring incremental validation"],"limitations":["Multi-step refactoring requires multiple model invocations — latency scales with step count","Validation between steps is limited to syntax checking; semantic validation requires test execution","Rollback on failure is not automatic — requires manual intervention"],"requires":["Code repository or file paths","Python 3.9+","Version control system (Git) for change tracking"],"input_types":["code files or directories","refactoring objectives (e.g., 'rename X to Y across all files')","refactoring scope"],"output_types":["refactoring plan with steps","transformed code","validation results per step","diff summaries"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_8","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.security.audit.and.vulnerability.detection","name":"security audit and vulnerability detection","description":"Provides a security audit tool that analyzes code for common vulnerabilities, security anti-patterns, and compliance issues. The tool performs static analysis using AI models to identify issues like SQL injection risks, insecure cryptography, hardcoded secrets, and authentication flaws. It generates detailed reports with severity levels, affected code locations, and remediation recommendations.","intents":["I want to identify security vulnerabilities in my code before deployment","I need to ensure code complies with security standards (OWASP, CWE, etc.)","I want to understand the security implications of third-party dependencies"],"best_for":["security-conscious teams and organizations","developers building security-critical applications","compliance-focused projects (healthcare, finance, etc.)"],"limitations":["AI-based analysis may miss sophisticated vulnerabilities or produce false positives","Cannot detect runtime vulnerabilities or logic flaws without execution context","Requires code to be readable and well-structured for effective analysis"],"requires":["Code files or repository","Python 3.9+","Security-capable model (Claude, GPT-4, etc.)"],"input_types":["code files or directories","security standards or compliance frameworks","dependency lists"],"output_types":["vulnerability report with severity levels","affected code locations","remediation recommendations","compliance assessment"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github_mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server__cap_9","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.automated.documentation.generation.from.code","name":"automated documentation generation from code","description":"Provides a documentation generation tool that analyzes code and produces comprehensive documentation including API docs, architecture guides, and usage examples. The tool extracts function signatures, docstrings, type hints, and code structure to generate documentation in multiple formats (Markdown, HTML, Sphinx). It can generate both reference documentation and narrative guides explaining system design and usage patterns.","intents":["I want to generate API documentation automatically from my code","I need to create architecture documentation that stays in sync with code changes","I want to generate usage examples and tutorials from existing code patterns"],"best_for":["open-source projects needing comprehensive documentation","teams maintaining large codebases with documentation debt","developers creating SDKs or libraries"],"limitations":["Generated documentation quality depends on code clarity and existing docstrings","Narrative documentation (architecture guides) requires manual review and enhancement","Complex architectural patterns may not be captured by code analysis alone"],"requires":["Code files or repository","Python 3.9+","Documentation framework (Sphinx, MkDocs, etc.) for output generation"],"input_types":["code files or directories","documentation style preferences","target documentation format"],"output_types":["API reference documentation","architecture guides","usage examples","formatted documentation (Markdown, HTML)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":48,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"moderate","permissions":["Python 3.9+","API keys for at least one provider (Gemini, OpenAI, Azure, Grok, OpenRouter, or Ollama)","Environment variables configured per provider setup docs","MCP client that supports tool invocation with message history","Server running continuously (memory not persisted to disk)","Task description or requirements","Context about codebase and team capacity","Web search API (Google, Bing, or custom search engine)","API key for search service","Internet connectivity"],"failure_modes":["Provider-specific features (e.g., vision capabilities, function calling schemas) require conditional logic in client code","Token counting and cost estimation varies per provider — no unified metering","Rate limit handling is provider-specific; no cross-provider quota management","Conversation memory is in-process only — lost on server restart; no persistence layer included","Reconstruction adds latency proportional to conversation length (replays all prior turns)","No built-in conversation pruning or summarization — memory grows unbounded with long sessions","Plans are estimates — actual execution may differ based on unforeseen issues","Dependency analysis is based on task description; may miss implicit dependencies","No automatic plan adjustment based on execution results","Web search adds latency to tool execution (1-3 seconds per search)","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.6703384948022332,"quality":0.5,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.6,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:22.064Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:23:31.492Z","last_commit":"2025-12-15T17:07:31Z"},"community":{"stars":11498,"forks":989,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server"}},"signature":"/omAHt7FMsX1NVPq0wxHEQQalB4Cxo3Ka1ekrtmxM4DXj5L2B/2M032TldX7kdxhy6q8E1OFr389/+bL806mDQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T06:22:52.196Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=mcp-beehiveinnovations-pal-mcp-server","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}