seo-monster— mcp server

SEO MCP over Search Console, GA4, PageSpeed Insights, Cloudflare, IndexNow, CrUX, technical-SEO.

by avansaber·MCP Server·github.com/avansaber/seo-monster

Is seo-monster safe to install?

SaferSkills independently audited seo-monster (MCP Server) and scored it 15/100 (red). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 1 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.

Score
15/100
●●○○○○○○○○
Re-scan~30s
Latest scan
ScannedJun 24, 2026 · 133d ago
Scans run0 over 90 days
Detectors55 checks · 5 categories
Findings0 warnings · 1 high
EngineSaferSkills 2b638c6
View methodology →
SaferSkills installs
This week0
This month0
All time0
CategoryWeightCategory scoreContribution
Securityprompt, exec, net, exfil, eval
35%
20
7.0 pts
Supply chainhash, typosquat, maintainer, lockfile
20%
100
20.0 pts
Maintenancestaleness, pinning, CI
15%
100
15.0 pts
TransparencySKILL.md, perms, README
15%
100
15.0 pts
Communityinstalls, verify, response
15%
100
15.0 pts

Findings & checks · 1 flagged

Securityscore 20 · 1 finding
CRITICALHidden-looking MCP tool name signals a shadow toolSS-MCP-POISON-SHADOW-TOOL-01 · Tool poisoning · manifest.json
CRITICAL — A shadow tool can perform arbitrary tool actions while appearing benign in manifest review.
Why it matters

This server publishes a tool whose name ({match}) uses an "internal/private" naming convention. The agent still sees and may invoke it, but a human reviewing the manifest skips over names that visually signal "not for me" — letting a hidden tool act unreviewed.

The exact value spotted
excerptmanifest.json· json
263},
264{
265"name": "inspect_meta",
266"description": "Fetch a URL and return its on-page SEO surface: title, meta description, rob
… (54 chars elided on L266)
267},
Occurrences
1 occurrence · at L265
How to fix
Rename internal-looking tools to plainly describe their purpose, or remove them if not consumer-facing.
  1. Confirm whether the flagged tool is meant to be reachable by the consuming agent.
  2. If it is, give it a clear descriptive name; if it is not, remove it from the manifest.
Framework references
OWASPLLM01ATLASAML.T0051
Trace & refs
ruleSS-MCP-POISON-SHADOW-TOOL-01sha25602e93e7ec389523a…rubric 365aacaView on GitHub
Supply chainscore 100 · 0 findings
✓—All supply chain checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass
Maintenancescore 100 · 0 findings
✓—All maintenance checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass
Transparencyscore 100 · 0 findings
✓—All transparency checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass
Communityscore 100 · 0 findings
✓—All community checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass
Vendor response · right of reply
Are you the maintainer? Submit a response →

Audit the pieces. Scan the whole. Decide.

~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.