Skip to main content

mcplock

npm audit / Subresource Integrity, but for MCP tool descriptions.

mcplock pins what an agent is allowed to trust about a tool, detects silent drift in tool definitions, and flags ambiguous or unscoped tools before an agent misuses them.

Status: pre-v0.1, under active development. snapshot, check, lint, and the GitHub Action are implemented.

Usage

mcplock snapshot "npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem ./data"
mcplock check "npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem ./data"
mcplock lint "npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem ./data"

Baselines are stored as flat JSON under ~/.mcplock/snapshots/ (override the root with MCPLOCK_HOME).

check exit codes — 0 clean, 1 drift at or above --fail-on (default high), 2 could not check. A missing baseline is exit 2, not 0: exiting clean for an unpinned server would silently green-light it in CI.

Servers needing credentials take --env KEY=VALUE (repeatable). The MCP SDK inherits only a small safe allowlist when spawning a stdio server, so anything else must be named explicitly. --env values are never written to the snapshot, and are not part of the server identity.

lint exits 0 even with findings unless --strict. These are judgment calls needing human review, not the binary facts check deals in — failing a build on a heuristic is how a linter gets switched off.

Linting

Ambiguity — "could an agent pick the wrong one of these two?" Description similarity alone does not answer that: on the 14 real tools of the official filesystem server, TF-IDF cosine at the 85% threshold flags 0 of 91 pairs, and the confusable and distinct pairs are not separable by any single cosine threshold. So the check is gated on schema substitutability — can one set of arguments satisfy both tools? — then scored on name affinity and description similarity, with a veto on opposing verbs (read/write, create/delete).

On that server the gate removes 63 of 91 pairs before scoring, and 4 are flagged: the three-way read_file/read_text_file/read_media_file cluster and list_directory/list_directory_with_sizes. The threshold sits in a 0.33–0.50 gap between the two classes.

Scope — two checks. A destructive verb with no boundary language anywhere (strengthened by unbounded words like "arbitrary" or "any file on the host"), and a convention departure: a tool omitting a boundary statement the rest of its own server makes. Neither inspects behaviour, so both are documentation gaps, never vulnerabilities.

Severity

Severity Meaning
critical a behavioural annotation flipped (destructiveHint, …)
high content changed in a way that widens what the tool can do
medium a pinned tool is gone
informational cosmetic rewording, benign new tools, non-behavioural keys

Four bands rather than the brief's two: with two, an annotation flip and a reworded sentence land in the same bucket.

The high heuristic stays deliberately simple — trigger vocabulary (execute, delete, send, all, admin) entering or leaving a description, plus two schema widenings (a required parameter becoming optional, a new parameter with destructive vocabulary). Keyword scanning ignores Unicode format characters, so de<ZWSP>lete cannot slip past it; hashing keeps them, so the edit still registers as drift.

Hash model

A tool is pinned by four hashes:

Hash Covers Purpose
content_hash description + inputSchema did the meaning of this tool change
description_hash description name which side moved
schema_hash inputSchema name which side moved
annotations_hash annotations behavioural promises, tracked separately

annotations_hash is deliberately not folded into content_hash. destructiveHint and readOnlyHint are assertions an agent may gate its behaviour on, so a flip is its own critical finding — folding it in would make it indistinguishable from a typo fix.

title, outputSchema, and execution are not hashed in v0.1; there is no concrete drift scenario for them yet.

CI

mcplock provides a reusable composite GitHub Action to gate pull requests against tool-definition drift in CI.

Add .github/workflows/mcplock.yml to your repository:

name: Check MCP Tool Definitions

on:
  pull_request:
    branches: [ main ]

jobs:
  check-drift:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - name: Verify MCP Server Baseline
        uses: yash161004/mcplock/.github/actions/mcp-lock-action@master
        with:
          server: 'npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem ./data'
          fail-on: 'high'

Demo

A real CI run against @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem:

  • ✓ Green run — baseline captured and verified clean
  • ✗ Broken run — injected description drift detected at HIGH severity, build fails

Action Inputs

Input Description Default
server Server command or streamable-HTTP URL Required
transport stdio | http | auto auto
fail-on Lowest severity threshold to fail build (critical | high | medium | informational) high
json-report Optional path to write machine-readable JSON report ""
env Space-separated KEY=VALUE environment variables for stdio server ""
python-version Python version for setup-python 3.11
mcplock-version PyPI version specifier for mcplock mcplock

Development

python -m venv .venv && .venv/Scripts/activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest

What it found

mcplock was run against 11 public MCP servers — 85 tools in total. The results, including what did not hold up, are written up in the project writeup:

  • 1 real finding out of 6 candidates taken to upstream verification, fixed via PR #4569
  • 2 defects in mcplock itself, found by that verification and fixed with regression tests built from real upstream strings — the scope lint went from 10 findings to 2, with none false
  • The brief's proposed ambiguity heuristic does not work. TF-IDF cosine at 85% flags 0 of 91 pairs; what makes it work is gating on schema substitutability first

The writeup also covers a provenance failure in this project's own release pipeline, because a tool that detects silent degradation should say when it suffered one.

Responsible disclosure

mcplock reads tool definitions that servers publish through tools/list. When it surfaces something real in someone else's server, we handle it like this:

  1. Private report first — to the project's security contact, SECURITY.md, or a private advisory, with the exact observed text, the date observed, and a reproduction.
  2. 90 days by default — shorter if it is fixed sooner, longer only if the maintainer is engaged and asks. Silence is not a reason to extend.
  3. Nothing public before then — not the server, not the finding.
  4. Honest credit — the maintainer's response is recorded as it happened, including disagreement.

We report on names, descriptions, and input schemas only. We do not test authentication, access anyone's data, or exploit anything beyond confirming what we saw.

Note what these checks are and are not: they read descriptions, not behaviour. A tool whose description omits a boundary may still enforce one perfectly. Those findings are documentation gaps, and reporting them as vulnerabilities would be wrong.

To report an issue in mcplock itself, contact the maintainer privately. The same 90-day standard applies to us.

Metadata

Release files for mcplock 1.0.3

For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.

Source distribution (sdist)

Source distribution for mcplock 1.0.3
File Size Uploaded Provenance Actions
mcplock-1.0.3.tar.gz 45.3 kB With provenance Details for mcplock-1.0.3.tar.gz

Built distribution (wheel)

Table of built distributions (wheels) for mcplock 1.0.3
File Interpreter ABI Platform Actions
mcplock-1.0.3-py3-none-any.whl Python 3 none any Details for mcplock-1.0.3-py3-none-any.whl

Total release size: 77.1 kB

Release files / mcplock-1.0.3.tar.gz

Download URL mcplock-1.0.3.tar.gz
Size 45.3 kB
Tags Source
SHA-256 checksum
How to use checksums
5f42dcbd01ac2a2fdc60858dc5f3f7f2b91374182992bb52309501f08a34862a
BLAKE2b-256 checksum
How to use checksums
8902c8b168d34c67b65e8fb755ea31152bbfea46db7550fa74a323e4dae80d9a
Upload date
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing?
What is trusted publishing?
Yes
Uploaded via twine/6.1.0 CPython/3.13.14

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Jul 29, 2026.

Transparency log

Release files / mcplock-1.0.3-py3-none-any.whl

Download URL mcplock-1.0.3-py3-none-any.whl
Size 31.8 kB
Tags Python 3
SHA-256 checksum
How to use checksums
88d0bb34434df91fd9e795520fd642d91e41905379afb1b5250fdb87fb618cd8
BLAKE2b-256 checksum
How to use checksums
4a6846ca1fef8522f7ef7d9065e9169af09d62a15d52e113b561b674fde495a1
Upload date
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing?
What is trusted publishing?
Yes
Uploaded via twine/6.1.0 CPython/3.13.14

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Jul 29, 2026.

Transparency log

Security for mcplock 1.0.3

Provenance

Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.

Full provenance

All 2 files in this release have been uploaded with provenance metadata.

Select from 2 files

Attestation for mcplock-1.0.3.tar.gz

PyPI Publish Attestation

PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.

Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Jul 29, 2026.

Transparency log

A note on package security

PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.

To learn more about protecting yourself from malicious actors, visit our package security documentation.

Anthropic, PBC Visionary sponsor Bloomberg Visionary sponsor Hudson River Trading Visionary sponsor Meta Visionary sponsor NVIDIA Visionary sponsor Microsoft Sustainability sponsor Depot Continuous Integration AWS Cloud computing and Security Sponsor Datadog Monitoring Fastly CDN Google Download Analytics Sentry Error logging StatusPage Status page