Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for freee API integration
Nothing to run from here
Proof Of Custody is installed from its publisher's own source and answers where it runs, so this marketplace is not in the path of a single call. There is no address here to send one to, and a panel that pretended otherwise would be showing you an answer we made up. Install it and call it from your own client — the Installation tab has the entry for each one.
93/100
tool-list score
15
tools declared
remote
at its publisher
—
calls last 7d
What it does
Bitcoin custody scores, failure registry, ETF custody, stablecoin and x402 data, source router.
Quickstart
# 1 — add it to Claude Code
claude mcp add --scope user --transport http proof-of-custody-mcp https://proofofcustody.io/api/mcp
# 2 — ask your agent for something these tools do
# search_custody_platforms, get_custody_platform, compare_custody_platforms and 12 more
Proof Of Custody costs nothing on mcprush: there is no plan to choose here, no cap to set and nothing mcprush can bill you for.
Publishernot claimed
ONAll 1 server
onrampbtc1 server
1 category
Collected from a public index. Nobody has claimed this account, so nothing here was written by its author — claim it if it is yours.
Installation
Where are you running it?
Every route below installs the same thing and ends at the same approval screen. Nothing here runs on your machine and nothing runs on ours: this server answers at its publisher’s own address, and what you install is the connection straight to it.
Claude Codedeclared by this listing
This is a public server: it answers at its publisher’s own address and this marketplace is not in the path. Claude Code registers it in one command; --scope user makes it available in every project. The transport below is http, as the publisher's own manifest declares it.
claude mcp add --scope user --transport http proof-of-custody-mcp https://proofofcustody.io/api/mcpReconnect, or start a new session, and the tools appear in the model’s tool list.
Free on mcprush, and it answers at its publisher’s own address: this marketplace is not in the path, so there is no key of ours to hold and no card to add.
What it writes
One config entry pointing straight at the publisher’s own address — this marketplace is not in the path, and nothing from this listing executes on your machine.
What you approve
15 tools, with what each one reads, writes and reaches shown before you agree — the same list on every route above. Read the tool surface.
Tool surface
What the model actually sees. Descriptions are diffed on every release — see version history.
Search Proof of Custody's independent scores for bitcoin and crypto custody platforms. Covers 90+ platforms across exchanges, qualified custodians, ETFs, IRAs, collaborative multisig and multi-institution custody, each scored 0-100 on a published six-category weighted methodology. Use to compare custody options, to read a named provider's published score and custody model, or to list top-scored pl
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | no | Name or keyword, e.g. 'unchained', 'IRA', 'multisig'. Omit to list top-scored. |
| category | string | no | Filter by category. |
| limit | number | no | Max results (default 10, max 40). |
Full Proof of Custody record for one platform: overall score, per-category scores, custody model, fees, insurance position, strengths and limitations. Use after search_custody_platforms, or when a specific provider is named.
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | Platform slug or name, e.g. 'unchained', 'coinbase', 'onramp'. |
Compare two or more custody platforms side by side on Proof of Custody's scores and custody architecture. Comparison is the shape most useful for a custody decision, because the differences that matter are structural rather than promotional.
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | array | yes | Two or more platform slugs or names, e.g. ['onramp','unchained','casa']. |
Apply the Custody Independence Standard: a published four-pillar test of whether a custody arrangement has genuine independence or only nominal distribution. Pillars are vendor, entropy, control and operational independence. Use for 'how many hardware wallets do I need', 'is my multisig actually safe', or to compare custody architectures rather than brands. Architecture-neutral: self-managed, coll
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | string | no | Platform slug or name to assess. Omit for the architecture archetypes. |
The Proof of Custody incident registry: dated records of major bitcoin custody failures from Mt. Gox to the 2026 Coldcard entropy defect, each with root cause, reported loss, the lesson, and which custody configurations the failure class could reach. Self-custody failures are included on equal terms with custodial ones. Use for questions about custody risk, historical hacks, or whether a given set
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | no | Filter by failure type. |
| exposed_config | string | no | Only incidents that could reach this custody configuration. |
Live status of the July 2026 Coldcard entropy failure: a firmware defect that caused affected hardware wallets to skip their hardware random number generator, making generated keys reconstructible offline. Returns the affected-model matrix with fixed firmware versions, confirmed and suspected loss figures, and open questions. Use for any question about Coldcard safety, whether a device or seed is
No parameter schema on file.
Proof of Custody's hardware wallet rubric: six weighted dimensions — entropy and key generation 25%, firmware integrity 20%, supply chain 15%, disclosure conduct 15%, multisig and recovery portability 15%, privacy and data handling 10%. Entropy is weighted highest because a key generated from predictable randomness cannot be protected by anything downstream. Use for 'best hardware wallet', 'X vs Y
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | string | no | Device slug, e.g. 'coldcard', 'ledger', 'trezor'. Omit for all. |
Filing-derived analysis of custodian concentration across US spot bitcoin ETFs: which custodian holds each fund's bitcoin, and the resulting Nakamoto coefficient at the custody layer. Use for questions about bitcoin ETF safety, IBIT or FBTC custody, whether ETFs are diversified, or ETF versus direct ownership.
No parameter schema on file.
Source router. Given a topic or question about bitcoin or digital-asset market structure (ETF holdings or custodians, stablecoin supply or attestations, tokenized assets, x402 and agent payments, agentic commerce protocols, MCP registries, proof of reserves, regulators and licences, hardware wallet advisories, custody incidents), returns the primary or near-primary sources to read, with cadence, a
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | Topic keyword or the question itself, e.g. 'who custodies IBIT', 'stablecoin supply', 'x402'. |
| limit | number | no | Max sources (default 5, max 12). |
What changed on Proof of Custody since a date: corrections, methodology changes, live incident updates and daily dataset refreshes (stablecoins, tokenized assets, x402, ETF net assets). Use for a scheduled briefing, or to check whether a cached answer went stale. Defaults to the last 30 days.
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | string | no | ISO date, e.g. 2026-10-01. Default: 30 days ago. |
Watchtower for a holder's counterparties. Give it the names of the exchanges, custodians, ETFs, IRA providers or hardware wallets someone uses and it returns, for each, the published custody model and single point of failure, incidents in the registry, hardware rubric status where it is a device, and any correction or score change since a date. Use for 'anything I should know about where I hold bi
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | array | yes | Counterparty names or slugs, e.g. ['coinbase', 'kraken', 'coldcard']. |
| since | string | no | ISO date for the change window. Default: 90 days ago. |
Full-text search across 320+ Onramp Media podcast transcripts (The Last Trade, Final Settlement and others) for what a guest or host said about a topic. Returns episode, show, date, matching passages and the episode URL. Use for 'what did X say about Y' and for sourcing a quote. Transcripts are machine-generated; verify a quote against the audio before publishing it.
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | Word or phrase to search for, e.g. 'multisig', 'Mt. Gox', 'custody insurance'. |
| show | string | no | Optional show name filter, e.g. 'The Last Trade'. |
| limit | number | no | Max episodes (default 5, max 8). |
Daily snapshot of stablecoin supply: total USD-pegged circulating supply, USDT and USDC share, and the top 25 by supply, credited to DefiLlama with the as-of date. Use for 'how big is the stablecoin market', 'USDT vs USDC share', or a stablecoin's supply.
| Parameter | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | string | no | Optional symbol to look up, e.g. USDC. |
Daily snapshot of tokenized-asset (RWA) protocols by TVL, credited to DefiLlama, with a pointer to RWA.xyz for issued asset value by class (tokenized Treasuries, credit, commodities). Use for 'how big is tokenization', 'largest RWA protocols', or where to find tokenized Treasury fund sizes.
No parameter schema on file.
Daily snapshot of the x402 agent-payments ecosystem: how many x402-payable services the Coinbase Bazaar lists, by network, asset and scheme, plus the x402 Foundation's 30-day transaction, volume, buyer and seller counts. Use for 'what is x402', 'how many services accept x402', or 'which networks do x402 services use'.
No parameter schema on file.
Free
$0 forever
- Every tool — any call limit is its publisher’s, not ours
- No card, and mcprush charges nothing for it
- Runs at its publisher’s own address — this marketplace is not in the path
- Nothing to cap, because mcprush bills nothing
What counts against your monthly calls
| Tool | Unit | Calls used | Out of the allowance |
|---|
Nothing here is billable: mcprush charges nothing to install Proof Of Custody or to call it, at any volume.
Call allowance · this installenforced at the gateway
Monthly allowance, in calls
—
—
Alert at 80% · then the tool returns a normal MCP error
Used this month: —
ATool-list grade · score 93 / 100
Release 1.1.0 · scanned 20 Oct 2026
Graded from the tools this server lists, not from its source code.
Two independent axes, because powerful and malicious are different questions. The grade is threat only. The capability level is blast radius, and it is never a penalty on the grade — it is priced as one subtract-only term in the score, where you can see it.
Threat score100
Client score93
Findings0 threat · 0 capability
Capabilitymoderate
Coveragemanifest
Verificationnot in this report
Surface digest08f986ed0a118c5f154457efe7c87c697ac3a64097ffe94a11a04389f1619d36
Score vectorthreat 100 → client 93
| Term | Level | What it prices | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability-exposure | moderate | capability blast radius (moderate) — client exposure if the model is manipulated | −3 |
| coverage-honesty | manifest | inspection depth (manifest) — how much of the target the scan could see | −4 |
score = clamp(round(threatScore − E_cap − E_ver − E_cov), 0, 100). No model, no opinion, no network call at scoring time: the same methodology version against the same bytes always produces this number, and every line above is a field of the report rather than a summary of it.
What the scan could actually read
A grade is only as meaningful as its coverage, so the scanner publishes its own depth before it publishes its result.
The scan read each tool’s name, description, input schema and annotations exactly as the server listed them the last time it answered us; no code was reviewed. We ask the server again about once a month, and a list that changed is graded again.
Tool surfaceread
Implementation sourcenot available
Package metadatanot available
Live transportnot available
The implementation source was not read — this reflects the declared tool metadata only.
Capability — what it could do if the model were manipulated
Tags derived from each tool’s schema and the implementation, not from what the tool calls itself. moderate is the level these add up to.
| Tool | Capability tags | Why the tag was assigned |
|---|---|---|
| search_custody_platforms | no tags | |
| get_custody_platform | no tags | |
| compare_custody_platforms | no tags | |
| assess_custody_independence | no tags | |
| list_custody_incidents | no tags | |
| get_coldcard_incident_status | no tags | |
| get_hardware_wallet_scores | no tags | |
| get_etf_custody_concentration | no tags | |
| find_source | no tags | |
| whats_new | no tags | |
| watch_counterparties | no tags | |
| search_transcripts | no tags | |
| get_stablecoin_supply | no tags | |
| get_tokenized_assets | sensitive-source | sensitive-source: keyword "get_token" |
| get_x402_services | no tags |
Toxic-flow graph
The lethal trifecta, checked as a graph rather than as a checklist: untrusted input, a sensitive source and an external sink have to meet before there is a path worth worrying about.
The public result for this release does not print the flow graph, so there is nothing to show here. That is not the same as "no paths were found": what the scan did read is above, under coverage.
Supply chain and provenance
Integrityfirst-seen
Surface digest08f986ed0a118c5f
Scanned2026-10-20
This is the first scan of this surface here, so there is nothing yet to compare it against.
Every result on this tab comes from one deterministic pass over the published package — offline, rule by rule, and auditable line by line above. Same methodology version, same bytes, same score.
Release history
This is an address its publisher runs: which release it serves is theirs to choose, so there is nothing here to pin. The history below is for reading; the current release on file is 1.1.0.
1.1.0
undated
latestNo release note was published with this version.
—
no reviews yet
Who can review
One review per account, from a signed-in account that does not publish this listing. Nothing else is asked — you can say what you think before you install it. Publishers can reply once per review, and a review can be edited or deleted by whoever wrote it.
Sign in to write one
Any signed-in account that does not publish Proof Of Custody can review it, once — before installing it or after. A review from an account that has installed it is marked as one.
No reviews yet
Nobody has reviewed this listing. The rating on the card is the mean of the reviews written here and nothing else, so there is no rating until somebody writes the first — which takes a signed-in account that does not publish it, and nothing else.