Correctover MCP Server
Official# Correctover — MCP Runtime Security
> **The runtime security layer for the MCP ecosystem.**
We build the runtime security layer for AI agent ecosystems. Correctover enforces security conformance on every MCP tool call — validating LLM outputs, blocking injection attacks, preventing credential hijacking, and auto-recovering from failures at 22μs P50 latency.




[](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21234580)
---
## What We Do
| Layer | What | Where |
|-------|------|-------|
| **Runtime Verification** | 6-dimension output validation (structure, schema, latency, cost, identity, integrity) + auto-failover | `correctover-mcp-server` |
| **Agent Governance SDK** | Synchronous interceptor-based governance — fail-closed by design | `correctover-ccs` (PyPI) |
| **Security Audits** | MCP protocol vulnerability research — CVE-class findings across 50+ implementations | [mcp-security-audits](https://github.com/Correctover/mcp-security-audits) |
| **Conformance Standard** | CCS v1.0 — formal standard for agentic runtime verification | [standards](https://github.com/Correctover/standards) |
| **Fault Taxonomy** | 215 fault types, 19 CVEs, 561 fault variants cataloged | Internal knowledge base |
---
## Real Data — Not Benchmarks
We don't simulate. We collect real API responses from production MCP servers and verify them.
### 20,000 Verified API Traces
| Dataset | Records | Size | Format |
|---------|---------|------|--------|
| CCS 20K Verification Subset | 20,000 | 18 MB | JSONL ([download](./data/Correctover-CCS-20K-Verification-Subset.jsonl)) |
**Collection methodology:**
- 43.6 minutes of continuous collection at 13.7 API calls/second
- 68.88% conformance rate (13,776 conformant / 6,224 non-conformant)
- 30% fault injection rate for stress testing
- Every record includes: request, response, latency, validation result, fault classification
**Third-party independent verification:** 120,426 conformance re-calculations by [@babyblueviper1](https://github.com/babyblueviper1) — full consistency confirmed.
The complete 20K dataset is in `./data/` — download, verify, fork, do whatever you want. No gatekeeping.
---
## Research & Publications
### CCS v1.0 — Runtime Security Conformance Standard
The first formal conformance standard defining how agent runtimes should validate tool execution results at runtime.
- **Paper:** [CCS Standard v1.0 Final (PDF)](./papers/CCS-Standard-v1.0.pdf)
- **DOI:** [10.5281/zenodo.21234580](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21234580)
- **Protocol Spec:** [RFC-001](https://github.com/Correctover/standards/blob/main/docs/RFC-001-CCS-Protocol-Specification.md) | [RFC-002](https://github.com/Correctover/standards/blob/main/docs/RFC-002-CCS-Symbol-Standard.md)
**Key findings from 20K real traces:**
- P50 validation latency: **22μs**
- Self-heal rate: **97.4%** (engine auto-retries/fails over on failed validation, then re-validates)
- Rule coverage: 88 detection rules (64 high-confidence)
- 561 distinct fault variants cataloged across all major LLM providers
### Fault Taxonomy
We maintain a living fault taxonomy derived from real-world MCP server failures:
- **215 distinct fault types** classified across 7 severity levels
- **19 CVE-class vulnerabilities** identified across MCP implementations
- Categories: RCE, SSRF, cloud credential hijacking, path traversal, output injection, privilege escalation
---
## Upstream PR Contributions
We don't just report — we fix. Our contributions go directly into major agent frameworks:
| PR | Framework | Status | What |
|----|-----------|--------|------|
| [ferro-labs#197](https://github.com/ferro-labs/ferro-labs/pull/197) | Ferro Labs | OPEN | Runtime validation integration |
| [CrewAI#6432](https://github.com/crewAIInc/crewAI/pull/6432) | CrewAI | 10 commits | GuardrailProvider — runtime governance protocol |
| [CrewAI#6411](https://github.com/crewAIInc/crewAI/pull/6411) | CrewAI | Discussion | Defining runtime verification authority |
| [agent-governance-toolkit#3347](https://github.com/microsoft/agent-governance-toolkit/pull/3347) | Microsoft | Under review | Runtime threat scanner — recursive nested-arg scanning, SSRF gaps, credential redaction, path boundary fixes |
---
## Community Validation
Real researchers using our work in production:
| Researcher | Framework | Contribution |
|-----------|-----------|-------------|
| [@pshkv](https://github.com/pshkv) (AutoGen maintainer) | AutoGen | Adopted Required(τ)⊆Supported(τ) framework for tool governance |
| [@humbl-dev](https://github.com/humbl-dev) | CrewAI | Testing two-layer governance structure |
| [@safal207](https://github.com/safal207) | CrewAI | Implemented GuardrailProvider based on our design (10 commits) |
| [@babyblueviper1](https://github.com/babyblueviper1) | Independent | 120,426 independent conformance re-calculations |
| [@Tuttotorna](https://github.com/Tuttotorna) | PHI-OMEGA | ICLR paper collaboration on runtime verification |
| [@XYG-LUNA](https://github.com/XYG-LUNA) | CrewAI | Idempotency analysis and interaction |
---
## MCP Server — Product
The runtime verification engine packaged as an MCP server for your AI tools.
### Quick Start
```bash
npm install -g correctover-mcp-server
```
Add to your `mcp.json` (Cursor, Claude Desktop, Windsurf):
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"correctover": {
"command": "correctover-mcp-server",
"env": {
"OPENAI_API_KEY": "sk-...",
"ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-..."
}
}
}
}
```
BYOK — your keys stay on your machine. No proxy, no data collection.
### How It Works
```
Your AI Tool (Cursor / Claude Desktop / Windsurf)
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Correctover MCP Server │
│ ┌───────────────────────┐ │
│ │ 6-Dim Validator │ │
│ │ ├─ Structure │ │
│ │ ├─ Schema │ │
│ │ ├─ Latency │ │
│ │ ├─ Cost │ │
│ │ ├─ Identity │ │
│ │ └─ Integrity │ │
│ └───────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────▼──────┐ │
│ │ Failover │ │
│ │ Engine │ │
│ └──────┬──────┘ │
└──────────┼──────────────────┘
│
┌──────┼──────┬──────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
OpenAI Anthropic DeepSeek Qwen ...
```
### Supported Providers
| Provider | Models | Env Variable |
|----------|--------|-------------|
| OpenAI | GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, o1 | `OPENAI_API_KEY` |
| Anthropic | Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Haiku, Opus | `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` |
| DeepSeek | DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1 | `DEEPSEEK_API_KEY` |
| Moonshot/Kimi | Moonshot-v1 | `MOONSHOT_API_KEY` |
| Alibaba Qwen | Qwen-Max, Qwen-Plus | `DASHSCOPE_API_KEY` |
| Groq | Llama, Mixtral | `GROQ_API_KEY` |
| Together | Llama, Mistral | `TOGETHER_API_KEY` |
### Tools
| Tool | Description |
|------|-------------|
| `chat` | Verified chat — 6-dim validation + auto-failover |
| `health` | Check provider status |
| `providers` | Detailed provider configuration |
| `stats` | Session metrics: calls, pass rate, failover count |
| `validation_history` | Query recent validation results (ring buffer, 500 records) |
---
## Ecosystem Adoption
Real download numbers from public package registries (last 30 days):
| Package | Registry | Monthly Downloads |
|---------|----------|-------------------|
| correctover-mcp-server | npm | 1,564 |
| correctover | npm | 1,034 |
| correctover-ccs | npm | 400 |
| correctover | PyPI | 1,436 |
| **Total** | | **4,434/month** |
All organic growth — no paid promotion. CCS standard package seeing highest growth rate (tens of thousands percent increase from baseline).
---
## CCS SDK — Agent Governance
Python SDK for embedding governance into agent frameworks. Fail-closed by design.
```bash
pip install correctover-ccs
```
```python
from ccs import govern
@govern(policy="default")
def my_tool(args: dict) -> str:
return "result"
# Governance evaluates BEFORE function runs
# If denied → PermissionError, function never executes
```
**Supported frameworks:** CrewAI, AutoGen, LangGraph/LangChain
```
Observer hooks (default): governance_crash → tool EXECUTES ❌
CCS decorators (ours): governance_crash → tool BLOCKED ✅
```
---
## Security Audit Reports
We publish detailed security audits of MCP server implementations:
→ [mcp-security-audits](https://github.com/Correctover/mcp-security-audits)
**Methodology:** Source code analysis → fault injection → runtime verification → CVE classification
**Findings to date:** 506 security findings across 3 major repositories, 5 vulnerability types confirmed cross-repo.
---
## Ecosystem & Links
| Resource | Link |
|----------|------|
| CCS Standard (paper) | [DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21234580](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21234580) |
| CCS Standard (GitHub) | [Correctover/standards](https://github.com/Correctover/standards) |
| MCP Server (npm) | [correctover-mcp-server](https://www.npmjs.com/package/correctover-mcp-server) |
| CCS SDK (PyPI) | [correctover](https://pypi.org/project/correctover/) |
| Security Audits | [Correctover/mcp-security-audits](https://github.com/Correctover/mcp-security-audits) |
| Agent Governance | [Correctover/agent-governance-toolkit](https://github.com/Correctover/agent-governance-toolkit) (fork with PRs) |
| Glama | [correctover/mcp-server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Correctover/mcp-server) |
| Protocol Spec | [standards/docs/RFC-001](https://github.com/Correctover/standards/blob/main/docs/RFC-001-CCS-Protocol-Specification.md) |
| Website | [correctover.com](https://correctover.com) |
---
## Contact
**Security reports**: wangguigui@correctover.com
**BD / Enterprise**: wangguigui@correctover.com
**GitHub**: [@Correctover](https://github.com/Correctover)
## License
Apache 2.0 © Correctover
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: chat for sending validated messages, health for checking provider availability, providers for listing all supported providers, stats for session statistics, and validation_history for reviewing past validation results. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: single words or compound words with underscores (e.g., validation_history). They are all lowercase and descriptive of their function, making them easy to understand and predict.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of managing LLM chat with validation and monitoring. Each tool covers a core aspect without being overly specialized or too sparse.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of interacting with LLM providers: checking configuration (health, providers), sending messages (chat), reviewing performance (stats), and auditing (validation_history). No obvious gaps are present for the stated purpose.