What can you do with this server?

mcp-shipcheck is a read-only auditing server for Node.js/TypeScript packages, helping you verify npm publish readiness, preview package contents, and understand audit failures. * shipcheck.audit: Analyze a local package folder to check npm publish readiness — validating package.json fields, SHIP_GATE.md, versioning, dependencies, exports, and other shipcheck hard-gate criteria. * shipcheck.packPreview: Show which files would be included by npm pack along with size totals — useful for catching accidentally included or excluded files before publishing. * shipcheck.explainFailure: Look up a specific shipcheck failure code (e.g., PKG.EXPORTS.MISSING) and get a plain-language explanation plus suggested fixes. All tools are read-only — no files are written, no network requests are made, and no telemetry is collected.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides tools to audit local package directories for npm publish-readiness, analyzing configuration files and previewing tarball contents to ensure a successful release.

How do I use mcp-shipcheck?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-shipcheck audit the current folder for npm publish readiness" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

mcp-shipcheck

by mcp-tool-shop-org

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Why

"Done" used to mean the code works. That's not enough. A product is code + safety + error handling + docs + identity + shipping hygiene. Shipcheck defines the bar.

Related MCP server: license-guardian

What's in here

Standard	What it covers
Ship Gate	31 hard-gate + 4 soft-gate pre-release checklist
Error Contract	2-tier structured error standard with code registry
Security Baseline	Report email, response timeline, threat scope
Handbook	Operational field manual for complex tools
Scorecard	Pre/post remediation scoring
Adoption Guide	Apply shipcheck to any repo in <30 minutes

CLI usage

npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck init        # Copy templates into current repo
npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck audit       # Check SHIP_GATE.md progress
npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck dogfood     # Check dogfood freshness (Gate F)
npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck front-door  # Verify the AI-native front door (Gate G)
npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck help        # Show help
npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck --version   # Show version

Set SHIPCHECK_JSON=1 to get structured JSON error output instead of coloured text.

Quick start

Read ADOPTION.md
Run npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck init in your repo root
Check off applicable items in SHIP_GATE.md, mark non-applicable with SKIP:
Run npx @mcptoolshop/shipcheck audit — exits 0 when all hard gates pass
Ship when audit passes

How it works

Hard gates (A-D) block release:

A. Security Baseline — SECURITY.md, threat model, no secrets, no telemetry, default safety posture
B. Error Handling — structured error shape (code/message/hint/retryable), safe output, graceful degradation
C. Operator Docs — README, CHANGELOG, LICENSE, tool documentation
D. Shipping Hygiene — verify script, version alignment, dependency scanning, lockfile

Soft gate (E) doesn't block but defines "whole":

E. Identity — logo, translations, landing page, repo metadata

Gate F — Dogfood Freshness (optional, requires dogfood-labs):

Checks for a fresh, verified, passing dogfood record
Supports enforcement modes: required, warn-only, exempt
Configurable freshness window (default: 30 days)

Gate G — AI-native front door (optional, requires @mcptoolshop/site-theme >=2.0.0):

Verifies that the repo's AI-native front door (README / AGENTS.md / llms.txt) tells the truth — the machine-readable complement to the Operator Docs (C) and Identity (E) gates
Delegates to site-theme's front-door verifier (verify({ root })), which routes documented claims to evidence channels and returns a risk-ordered scorecard
Surfaces counts by severity (contradicted · unbacked · stale · bloat · hygiene · style) plus the gate verdict; fails (exit 1) on contradicted / unbacked / stale claims
site-theme is an optional peer dependency (a hard dep would pull astro into this zero-dep CLI). When it isn't installed, the gate skips gracefully (exit 0) — it never crashes the audit

Executed gates — `audit` counts boxes; these read the artifact

shipcheck audit only tallies the checkboxes in SHIP_GATE.md — a box can be green while the fact is false. The gates below execute the check against the real artifact and exit 1 on the real defect. Each converts a specific Ship Gate line from a human attestation into a machine verification, and each ships with a RED meta-test that mutates the protected thing and proves the gate fires.

Gate H — publish surface (shipcheck pack, D5): runs npm pack --dry-run on every publishable workspace package; fails if any tarball lacks README/LICENSE, a files[] entry doesn't resolve, or license is unset.
Gate I — secrets (shipcheck secrets, A3): scans every publishable package's tarball surface for high-signal credentials (provider-prefixed keys, tokens, private-key blocks); matches are redacted; shipcheck-allow-secret whitelists a documented example.
Gate J — manifest (shipcheck manifest, D2/D6/D7): every publishable package sets engines/requires-python (D6); a lockfile is committed (D7); the manifest version is not behind the newest released git tag (D2, --expect <ver> for a strict release match).
Gate K — security-docs (shipcheck security-docs, A1/A2): SECURITY.md exists with a reporting contact (not an empty stub), and the README states a trust/threat model with a substantive body. Verifies presence + contact, not threat-model quality.
Gate L — ci (shipcheck ci, provenance + dependency-scan config): reads .github/workflows — every npm publish workflow uses OIDC (id-token: write) and --provenance, and a recognized scanner is configured in CI (or dependabot is present). --registry <pkg>[@<ver>] also confirms the published tarball carries a provenance attestation on npm (intent and outcome).
Gate M — deps (shipcheck deps, the dependency-security outcome): runs npm audit in every lockfile'd tree (root and subtrees — a scanner configured only for the root misses the rest), fails on vulnerabilities at/above --level (default high), and checks whether GitHub Dependabot alerts are even enabled. ci proves a scanner is configured; deps proves there are no known vulnerabilities — a repo can pass the first and fail the second.

Every gate's --json output is pure JSON (no header line), so it pipes cleanly into other tools.

The gate says what must be true, not how to implement it. Applicability tags ([all], [npm], [mcp], [cli], [desktop], [vsix], [container]) prevent checkbox shame on repos where items don't apply.

Error contract at a glance

Tier 1 — Shape (mandatory everywhere):

{
  "code": "INPUT_TEXT_EMPTY",
  "message": "Text must not be empty",
  "hint": "Provide at least one character of text",
  "retryable": false
}

Tier 2 — Base type + exit codes (CLI/MCP/desktop):

Exit code	Meaning
0	OK
1	User error (bad input, missing config)
2	Runtime error (crash, backend failure)
3	Partial success (some items succeeded)

Error codes use namespaced prefixes: IO_, CONFIG_, PERM_, DEP_, RUNTIME_, PARTIAL_, INPUT_, STATE_. Codes are stable once released.

Trust model

Data touched: reads package.json, pyproject.toml, and SHIP_GATE.md in the current working directory. Writes template files (SHIP_GATE.md, SECURITY.md, CHANGELOG.md, SCORECARD.md) to the current directory only. No network requests. All operations are local file reads and writes. No secrets handling. Does not read, store, or transmit credentials. No telemetry collected or sent.

Reference implementation

mcp-voice-soundboard was the first repo to pass Ship Gate — scoring 46/50 after remediation.

Scorecard

Category	Score	Notes
A. Security	6/8	SECURITY.md, trust model, no secrets/telemetry. MCP items skipped (not an MCP server)
B. Error Handling	3/7	Structured error shape + exit codes + no raw stacks. MCP/desktop/vscode skipped
C. Operator Docs	4/7	README, CHANGELOG, LICENSE, --help. Logging/MCP/complex skipped
D. Shipping Hygiene	6/9	verify script, version=tag, npm audit in CI, engines.node, lockfile. Zero deps = no update mechanism
E. Identity	4/4	Logo, translations, landing page, metadata
Total	23/31	14 items skipped with justification · `shipcheck audit` passes 100%

License

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools

shipcheck.auditA

Read-only

Audit a local Node/TypeScript package for npm publish readiness (read-only).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute or relative path to the package folder

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds the 'read-only' qualifier, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, providing helpful reinforcement. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as what specific checks are performed, error handling, or output format expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Audit a local Node/TypeScript package') followed by scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only audit tool with good annotations, the description provides adequate context about purpose and scope. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the audit returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, specific issues found), leaving some uncertainty about the tool's complete behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Audit') and resource ('a local Node/TypeScript package'), with explicit scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on audit rather than explanation or preview functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('for npm publish readiness'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (explainFailure, packPreview). The 'read-only' qualifier helps establish appropriate use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

shipcheck.explainFailureA

Read-only

Explain a shipcheck failure code and suggest fixes (read-only).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	Failure code, e.g. PKG.EXPORTS.MISSING

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it provides explanations and suggests fixes. The '(read-only)' parenthetical reinforces the annotation while adding practical behavioral information about what the tool delivers. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence with parenthetical) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's function and safety characteristic in minimal space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and its safety profile. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't indicate what format the explanations and fixes will take, but this is partially compensated by the clear purpose statement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'code' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explain a shipcheck failure code and suggest fixes'. It specifies the verb 'explain' and resource 'shipcheck failure code', and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on failure explanation rather than audit or preview functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (when a failure code needs explanation) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools shipcheck.audit or shipcheck.packPreview. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

shipcheck.packPreviewA

Read-only

Show which files would be included by npm pack and report size totals (read-only).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute or relative path to the package folder

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying this is a preview/simulation ('would be included') and that it reports size totals. It doesn't contradict the read-only annotation and provides useful operational details about what the tool actually does.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its behavioral characteristics. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does mention what information will be returned (file list and size totals).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Show which files would be included') and resource ('by `npm pack`') with additional scope ('and report size totals'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a preview/read-only operation rather than actual execution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to preview npm pack results before actual packing) and implies it's an alternative to running npm pack directly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

3 tool updatesv0.1.0Feb 18, 2026
- First observedshipcheck.audit
- First observedshipcheck.explainFailure
- First observedshipcheck.packPreview

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: audit checks npm publish readiness, explainFailure decodes error codes, and packPreview shows file inclusions. An agent can easily distinguish between these three focused functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern (audit, explainFailure, packPreview) with consistent dot notation (shipcheck.*) and snake_case for multi-word names. The naming is highly predictable and readable throughout.

Tool Count5/5

With 3 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of npm package readiness checks. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects (auditing, error explanation, and packing preview) without being overly sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers core npm package readiness workflows effectively: audit for checks, explainFailure for troubleshooting, and packPreview for validation. A minor gap exists in lacking a tool to directly fix issues (e.g., auto-correct or apply fixes), but agents can work around this using the explanations provided.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

NPMScan A
io.github.salemalem
Detect malicious or vulnerable npm packages: registry search, OSV.dev and GitHub advisory lookups
Security Code Analysis Developer Tools
231
Repo Security Scanner — Malicious Code & Supply ChainOAuth
io.github.eltociear
Audit GitHub repos for malicious and supply-chain code before you depend on them.
Security Code Analysis Version Control
1
Attester Oracle A
io.github.maminihds
Verify PyPI and npm packages, symbols, and version diffs against real artifacts. Free, no account.
Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps
42
Nekzus-npm-sentinel-mcpOAuth
ai.smithery
Provide AI-powered real-time analysis and intelligence on NPM packages, including security, depend…
Developer Tools Monitoring Security
218

Related MCP Servers

npm-guardian
Security Code Analysis
Baneado98
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Audits npm packages for supply-chain attacks (typosquatting, malicious install scripts, credential exfiltration) before installation, returning a SAFE/SUSPICIOUS/DANGEROUS verdict.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-22 16:48 UTC)
MIT
license-guardian
Baneado98
-
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Audits npm dependencies for license compatibility, catching copyleft and source-available traps before shipping.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-23 14:29 UTC)
-
lockfile-guardian
Security Developer Tools
Baneado98
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Audits your package-lock.json for supply-chain attacks before install. Cross-checks every resolved entry against the live npm registry to detect integrity mismatches, new install scripts, and other malicious signals.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-22 16:48 UTC)
MIT
pkg-api-mcp
Developer Tools Code Analysis Documentation Access
Anicodeth
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Provides the real exported API surface and type signatures of any npm package, extracted from its published TypeScript declarations, enabling AI coding agents to use functions accurately and avoid inventing nonexistent APIs.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-13 11:11 UTC)
3
12
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mcp-tool-shop-org/shipcheck'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

Why

What's in here

CLI usage

Quick start

How it works

Executed gates — audit counts boxes; these read the artifact

Error contract at a glance

Trust model

Reference implementation

Scorecard

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

Executed gates — `audit` counts boxes; these read the artifact