{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-mcpverse","slug":"mcpverse","name":"MCPVerse","type":"mcp","url":"https://mcpverse.dev","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/mcpverse","categories":["mcp-servers","deployment-infra"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_0","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.mcp.server.creation.and.scaffolding","name":"mcp server creation and scaffolding","description":"Provides a guided interface for developers to define and generate MCP server boilerplate with authentication configuration built-in. The platform likely uses a form-based or wizard-driven approach to capture server metadata, resource definitions, and tool schemas, then generates starter code with authentication middleware pre-configured. This eliminates manual setup of MCP protocol compliance and security patterns.","intents":["I want to quickly bootstrap a new MCP server without manually implementing the protocol specification","I need to create an MCP server with OAuth2 or API key authentication already wired in","I want to generate server scaffolding that follows MCP best practices and security patterns"],"best_for":["developers building internal tool integrations as MCP servers","teams standardizing on MCP for agent-accessible services","rapid prototypers who need working MCP servers in minutes, not hours"],"limitations":["Generated code likely requires customization for domain-specific logic — scaffolding is a starting point, not a complete solution","May be opinionated about tech stack (language, framework) — limited flexibility if you need non-standard implementations","Authentication templates may not cover all enterprise patterns (SAML, mTLS, custom JWT validation)"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with authentication credentials","Basic understanding of MCP protocol concepts (resources, tools, prompts)","Runtime environment matching generated server's language/framework (e.g., Node.js 18+, Python 3.9+)"],"input_types":["structured form data (server name, description, authentication type)","schema definitions (tool signatures, resource types)","configuration metadata (endpoints, scopes, permissions)"],"output_types":["server boilerplate code (language-specific)","authentication middleware configuration","MCP protocol implementation stubs","deployment manifests (Docker, systemd, etc.)"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_1","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.authenticated.mcp.server.hosting.and.deployment","name":"authenticated mcp server hosting and deployment","description":"Provides managed hosting infrastructure for MCP servers with built-in authentication, TLS termination, and secure credential management. Likely uses containerization (Docker) and orchestration (Kubernetes or similar) to run servers in isolated environments, with a control plane that handles certificate provisioning, secret rotation, and access policy enforcement. Developers deploy code once and the platform manages uptime, scaling, and security.","intents":["I want to deploy my MCP server without managing infrastructure, certificates, or authentication tokens","I need my MCP server to be accessible to multiple clients with different permission levels","I want automatic TLS/SSL and credential rotation without manual intervention"],"best_for":["teams without DevOps resources who need production-grade MCP hosting","organizations requiring compliance-auditable deployments (logs, access control, encryption)","developers building multi-tenant MCP services with per-client authentication"],"limitations":["Vendor lock-in — migrating servers away from MCPVerse requires re-deployment and credential re-issuance","Cold start latency may be higher than self-hosted solutions if platform uses serverless/on-demand scaling","Limited customization of runtime environment (no custom kernel modules, restricted syscalls, etc.)","Pricing likely scales with compute/bandwidth — cost-prohibitive for high-traffic servers vs. self-hosting"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with billing setup","Containerized MCP server (Docker image or language runtime supported by platform)","Valid domain name for server endpoint (or MCPVerse-provided subdomain)","API credentials or OAuth2 configuration for client authentication"],"input_types":["server code (Git repository, Docker image, or uploaded artifact)","environment variables and secrets (API keys, database credentials)","authentication policy configuration (OAuth2 scopes, IP allowlists, rate limits)","deployment configuration (resource limits, scaling rules, health check endpoints)"],"output_types":["public HTTPS endpoint for MCP server","authentication tokens or credentials for clients","deployment logs and monitoring dashboards","audit logs of access and configuration changes"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.secure.client.to.server.connection.brokering","name":"secure client-to-server connection brokering","description":"Manages authenticated connections between MCP clients (agents, applications) and hosted MCP servers through a secure relay or gateway. The platform likely implements mutual TLS (mTLS), API key validation, or OAuth2 token verification at the connection layer, ensuring only authorized clients can access server resources. May use a connection broker pattern to multiplex connections and enforce per-client rate limits and resource quotas.","intents":["I want to ensure only authenticated clients can connect to my MCP server","I need to enforce per-client rate limits and resource usage quotas","I want to audit which clients accessed which server resources and when"],"best_for":["teams building multi-tenant MCP services with strict access control","organizations with compliance requirements (SOC2, HIPAA) needing audit trails","developers protecting sensitive MCP servers from unauthorized access"],"limitations":["Connection brokering adds latency (typically 50-200ms per request) due to authentication and relay overhead","Broker becomes a single point of failure — requires high availability configuration for production use","Rate limiting and quota enforcement may be coarse-grained (per-client, not per-resource) depending on implementation","Debugging connection issues requires understanding the broker's authentication flow and logging"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with server hosting","Client credentials (API key, OAuth2 token, or mTLS certificate) issued by MCPVerse","MCP client library that supports the platform's authentication scheme","Network connectivity to MCPVerse broker endpoint (no offline mode)"],"input_types":["client authentication credentials (API key, token, certificate)","connection request with MCP protocol headers","resource access request (tool invocation, resource read, etc.)"],"output_types":["authenticated connection session","access decision (allow/deny) with reason","audit log entry with client identity, resource, timestamp, and result"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_3","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.mcp.server.discovery.and.client.connection.management","name":"mcp server discovery and client connection management","description":"Provides a registry and discovery mechanism for MCP servers hosted on MCPVerse, allowing clients to find and connect to servers by name, capability, or metadata. Likely implements a service discovery pattern (similar to Consul or Kubernetes DNS) where servers register themselves and clients query the registry to obtain connection details and authentication credentials. May include a web UI or API for browsing available servers and their capabilities.","intents":["I want to find available MCP servers that provide a specific capability (e.g., 'database query execution')","I need to dynamically discover and connect to MCP servers without hardcoding endpoints","I want to see what tools and resources are available on a server before connecting"],"best_for":["teams building agent frameworks that need dynamic MCP server discovery","organizations with many internal MCP servers needing a central registry","developers building MCP client applications that should adapt to available servers"],"limitations":["Discovery latency — querying the registry adds overhead compared to hardcoded endpoints","Registry consistency — if servers are added/removed frequently, clients may see stale data","Metadata completeness — discovery only works well if server operators provide accurate, detailed capability descriptions","No built-in versioning — if servers update their tool signatures, clients may break without explicit version negotiation"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with at least one hosted MCP server","MCP client library with discovery support (or custom code to query the discovery API)","Server metadata (name, description, capability tags) configured in MCPVerse"],"input_types":["discovery query (server name, capability tag, or metadata filter)","client identity (for permission-based filtering)"],"output_types":["list of matching MCP servers with metadata","connection details (endpoint, authentication method, required credentials)","capability schema (available tools, resources, prompts)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_4","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.credential.and.secret.management.for.mcp.servers","name":"credential and secret management for mcp servers","description":"Provides a secure vault for storing and rotating credentials (API keys, database passwords, OAuth2 secrets) used by MCP servers. Likely uses encryption at rest (AES-256 or similar) and in transit (TLS), with role-based access control to limit which servers can access which secrets. May integrate with external secret managers (HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager) or provide a built-in vault. Supports automatic rotation policies and audit logging of secret access.","intents":["I want to store database credentials and API keys securely without embedding them in server code","I need to rotate credentials periodically without redeploying my MCP server","I want to audit which servers accessed which secrets and when"],"best_for":["teams deploying MCP servers that need to access external services (databases, APIs)","organizations with compliance requirements (SOC2, PCI-DSS) requiring secret management","developers building multi-tenant MCP services with per-tenant credentials"],"limitations":["Secret access latency — retrieving secrets from the vault adds ~10-50ms per request if not cached","Caching secrets in memory increases attack surface — compromise of server process exposes cached secrets","Rotation policies may not be atomic — brief window where old and new credentials coexist, risking inconsistency","No built-in integration with all secret sources — may require custom code to sync external secrets into MCPVerse vault"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with secret management enabled","MCP server code that retrieves secrets via MCPVerse API or environment variables","Permissions to create/read secrets in the vault (role-based access control)"],"input_types":["secret name and value (API key, password, token, etc.)","secret metadata (description, rotation policy, access control rules)","rotation configuration (interval, strategy)"],"output_types":["encrypted secret stored in vault","secret value (returned to authorized servers only)","audit log entry (who accessed which secret, when, from which server)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.mcp.server.monitoring.and.observability","name":"mcp server monitoring and observability","description":"Provides dashboards, metrics, and logging for hosted MCP servers, tracking uptime, request latency, error rates, and resource usage. Likely collects metrics from the server runtime (CPU, memory, network I/O) and from the MCP protocol layer (tool invocations, resource reads, authentication failures). May integrate with external observability platforms (Datadog, New Relic) or provide built-in visualization. Includes alerting for anomalies (high error rate, slow responses, resource exhaustion).","intents":["I want to monitor the health and performance of my deployed MCP servers","I need to debug why a tool invocation is slow or failing","I want to be alerted if my MCP server becomes unavailable or starts returning errors"],"best_for":["teams running production MCP servers that need visibility into performance","developers troubleshooting MCP server issues (slow tools, authentication failures, crashes)","organizations requiring SLA compliance and uptime tracking"],"limitations":["Observability overhead — collecting and storing metrics adds ~5-10% CPU/memory overhead to servers","Metric retention limits — historical data may be limited to 30-90 days depending on plan","Alerting latency — alerts may be delayed by 1-5 minutes due to metric aggregation","Limited context — metrics show THAT something went wrong, but may not show WHY (requires log analysis)"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with monitoring enabled","MCP server deployed on MCPVerse (self-hosted servers may not be supported)","Access to monitoring dashboard (web UI or API)"],"input_types":["server runtime metrics (CPU, memory, network I/O)","MCP protocol events (tool invocations, resource reads, authentication attempts)","application logs (server-generated error/info messages)"],"output_types":["performance dashboards (latency, throughput, error rate)","resource usage graphs (CPU, memory, network)","request logs (timestamp, client, tool/resource, result, duration)","alerts (email, Slack, webhook) for anomalies"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-mcpverse__cap_6","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.multi.client.authentication.and.authorization.policy.management","name":"multi-client authentication and authorization policy management","description":"Provides a policy engine for defining fine-grained access control rules that determine which clients can access which MCP server resources (tools, resources, prompts). Likely uses a declarative policy language (similar to AWS IAM or Kubernetes RBAC) where operators define rules like 'client group A can invoke tool X but not tool Y' or 'client B can read resource Z only during business hours'. Policies are evaluated at request time to allow/deny access.","intents":["I want to restrict which clients can invoke which tools on my MCP server","I need to enforce time-based access control (e.g., only allow access during business hours)","I want to implement role-based access control where different client groups have different permissions"],"best_for":["teams building multi-tenant MCP services with strict access control requirements","organizations with compliance requirements (HIPAA, PCI-DSS) needing fine-grained authorization","developers protecting sensitive MCP tools from unauthorized access"],"limitations":["Policy complexity — complex rules (e.g., 'allow if time is business hours AND client is in group A AND resource is not sensitive') can be hard to reason about and audit","Policy evaluation overhead — evaluating complex policies adds latency (typically 10-50ms per request)","Limited expressiveness — policy language may not support all authorization patterns (e.g., attribute-based access control with custom attributes)","Policy versioning — no built-in version control or rollback for policy changes, risking accidental permission loss"],"requires":["MCPVerse account with policy management enabled","Understanding of policy language and syntax","Client identity/group information (provided via authentication credentials)"],"input_types":["policy definition (declarative rules in platform's policy language)","client identity and group membership","resource/tool being accessed","request context (timestamp, source IP, etc.)"],"output_types":["access decision (allow/deny)","reason for decision (which policy rule matched)","audit log entry (client, resource, decision, timestamp)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":27,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCPVerse account with authentication credentials","Basic understanding of MCP protocol concepts (resources, tools, prompts)","Runtime environment matching generated server's language/framework (e.g., Node.js 18+, Python 3.9+)","MCPVerse account with billing setup","Containerized MCP server (Docker image or language runtime supported by platform)","Valid domain name for server endpoint (or MCPVerse-provided subdomain)","API credentials or OAuth2 configuration for client authentication","MCPVerse account with server hosting","Client credentials (API key, OAuth2 token, or mTLS certificate) issued by MCPVerse","MCP client library that supports the platform's authentication scheme"],"failure_modes":["Generated code likely requires customization for domain-specific logic — scaffolding is a starting point, not a complete solution","May be opinionated about tech stack (language, framework) — limited flexibility if you need non-standard implementations","Authentication templates may not cover all enterprise patterns (SAML, mTLS, custom JWT validation)","Vendor lock-in — migrating servers away from MCPVerse requires re-deployment and credential re-issuance","Cold start latency may be higher than self-hosted solutions if platform uses serverless/on-demand scaling","Limited customization of runtime environment (no custom kernel modules, restricted syscalls, etc.)","Pricing likely scales with compute/bandwidth — cost-prohibitive for high-traffic servers vs. self-hosting","Connection brokering adds latency (typically 50-200ms per request) due to authentication and relay overhead","Broker becomes a single point of failure — requires high availability configuration for production use","Rate limiting and quota enforcement may be coarse-grained (per-client, not per-resource) depending on implementation","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.24,"ecosystem":0.35000000000000003,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"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":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.578Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:18.053Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=mcpverse","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=mcpverse"}},"signature":"05INb/vblPDu5qRRBZ7WQuhQae22ItiYEniIdI+5pkoheMXXU/rx9wcOit81gMW8IarbCs550mnoz3+/LQkgCg==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T07:17:43.704Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/mcpverse","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/mcpverse","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=mcpverse","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"}}