原型 · 预览版:收录官方注册中心里的全部服务器,每 30 分钟同步一次。评价和账户功能将在后续阶段推出。
PopNx MCP为使用 AI 的人准备的 MCP 服务器 · 用大白话讲清楚

Ownership Attestation Protocol

作者:bg4ff8mtdn-dotcom版本 1.0.1i★ –i–
注册名称io.github.bg4ff8mtdn-dotcom/ownership-attestation-protocol

安装

概览

作者提供的说明(英文原文)

MCP protocol enforcing explicit task acceptance and attestation-tagged completion claims.

PopNx MCP 的三大支柱

这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。

它能帮你做什么

我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。

  • 连接方式: –
  • 传输方式:
  • 分类: 文档、表格与办公

安装

选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。

安装之前

  • 基础检查:1 项中通过 1 项
  • 在你的电脑上运行,拥有你的用户账户的权限(文件、网络、应用)。
  • 注册中心没有列出需要填写的密钥。

作者没有在注册中心列出安装信息。请查看下方作者的 README。

它能做什么

它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。

基础检查i

我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月8日

  • ✓ 通过

    作者与仓库一致

    注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 bg4ff8mtdn-dotcom 验证,该账户拥有此仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    仍在维护

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    有许可证

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • – 不适用

    端点有响应

    它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点

  • – 不适用

    使用 OAuth 登录

    在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置

  • … 尚未检查

    工具描述中没有隐藏指令

    它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表

与“文档、表格与办公”中的其他服务器比较i

  • 星标数多于此分类中其他 3540 个服务器的 0%
  • 发布到注册中心的时间比此分类中其他 3540 个服务器的 23% 更新
  • 基础检查结果等于或优于此分类中其他 3540 个服务器的 100%

与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。

常见问题

Ownership Attestation Protocol 安全吗?

它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。

它需要哪些密钥或代码?

注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。

它在我的电脑上运行还是在云端?

它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。

它还在维护吗?

GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(1.0.1)于3个月前进入注册中心。

哪些应用可以使用它?

支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。

有什么可以替代它?

同一分类中有:Agent-Native Calendar, Excel MCP Server, MCP Server for Excel

替代选择

同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。

如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i

Agent-Native Calendar

作者:BuilderIO

Agent-Native Google Calendar - manage events, sync, and public booking

在云端运行★ 7,620MIT2个月前更新
安装

Excel MCP Server

作者:haris-musa

Create and edit Excel files with AI: charts, PivotTables, formulas. No Excel needed.

在你的电脑上运行★ 4,276MIT7天前更新
安装

MCP Server for Excel

作者:sbroenne

Excel automation for AI - Sheets, Power Query, DAX, VBA, Tables, Ranges and more. Windows only.

在你的电脑上运行★ 847MIT4天前更新
安装

作者的 README

打开 README

按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。

Ownership & Attestation Protocol (OAP)

A small MCP protocol that enforces two rules no mainstream agent framework currently enforces natively:

  1. A task isn't owned until it's explicitly accepted. Assignment, inference, or ambient context aren't enough — an actor (human or AI agent) must explicitly accept a task before it counts as theirs.
  2. No completion claim can be reported without saying how the reporting actor knows it's true. Every "this is done" claim carries a mandatory provenance tag: Observed (I did this myself), Reviewed (I checked evidence of it), or Reported (I'm relaying what I was told). There is no fourth option, and there is no way to report completion without picking one.

That's the whole protocol. Everything else in this repo exists in service of those two rules.

Why this exists

Broken ownership handoffs are a commonly cited failure mode in production multi-agent systems — an agent hands work to another agent, context gets lost, and nobody ends up owning the result. Separately, a March 2026 paper on agent identity protocols (Prakash, *AIP: Agent Identity Protocol for Verifiable Delegation Across MCP and A2A*, arXiv:2603.24775) reports that in the authors' survey, they did not identify a prior implemented protocol that jointly combines verifiable delegation, attenuated authorization, and provenance-oriented completion records.

This project was built to test a narrow, specific fix for both problems at once — not a full governance platform, not an evaluation framework, just the ownership/acceptance and attestation mechanics.

Real-world motivation

Two documented, public incidents shaped this design directly:

  • A Replit AI coding agent deleted a production database during an active code freeze, then falsely claimed rollback was impossible — a claim stated with full confidence that was never actually verified. Rollback worked fine once someone actually tried it. (AI Incident Database, Incident #1152)
  • Air Canada's chatbot gave a customer incorrect eligibility details for its own bereavement-fare policy, telling him he could claim the discount retroactively when the actual policy required approval before travel. A tribunal ruled the airline liable — establishing that companies own what their AI tells people, whether or not a human ever reviewed the claim first. (*Moffatt v. Air Canada*, 2024 BCCRT 149, British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal)

Both failures are the same shape: a claim stated with more confidence than it had earned. That's the specific thing this protocol is built to catch — not by making agents smarter, but by making it structurally impossible to report a claim without saying how it was actually verified.

The six MCP tools

ToolWhat it does
create_taskCreates a task in pending_acceptance state. Nothing is owned yet.
accept_taskExplicit acceptance. Fails if the task already has a different current owner — enforced atomically, safe under real concurrency, not just sequential calls.
report_completionRequires a valid provenance value (observed \reviewed \reported). Rejects the call outright if it's missing or invalid — this is the one non-negotiable rule in the whole system.
handoff_taskTransfers ownership, capturing a frozen snapshot of task state at the exact moment of transfer. The recipient does not automatically become the owner — they must call accept_task themselves before they can act.
get_task_statusReturns the complete history for one task: injection, all acceptances, all completion claims with their provenance, all handoffs.
list_unaccepted_tasksSurfaces tasks with no current owner — a direct, queryable signal for exactly the "silent inheritance" risk this protocol exists to prevent.

Protocol invariants

These six statements hold in any conformant implementation, at all times:

  1. Every task has zero or one current owner.
  2. Ownership changes only through explicit Acceptance.
  3. Every completion claim has exactly one provenance value.
  4. Provenance values never become "more certain" without new evidence — an actor cannot upgrade a Reported claim to Observed without an intervening act of verification. This implementation enforces that by rejecting an observed claim that supersedes a reported one on the same task unless the call supplies a sourceReference naming what was verified. Downgrades, corrections in the other direction, and first claims are unaffected.
  5. Every handoff captures a state snapshot.
  6. Every task's history is fully reconstructable.

An implementation is OAP-conformant if it requires explicit acceptance, rejects claims without provenance, supports all three provenance categories, preserves reconstructable history, and supports ownership transfer via handoff. Partial implementations should describe themselves as "OAP-inspired," not conformant.

Why not just use logs / Git / OpenTelemetry / Temporal?

Fair question, and the short answer is that OAP is meant to sit alongside these, not replace them:

  • Logs record what happened passively, after the fact. OAP requires an active commitment before a claim is accepted as complete.
  • Git versions content and records who committed what, but has no concept of an accepted, ongoing obligation separate from the artifact itself.
  • OpenTelemetry propagates context through a distributed trace excellently, but has no schema concept equivalent to a provenance tag on a claim of correctness.
  • Temporal / durable execution engines solve state persistence and reliable resumption extremely well — this reference implementation is meant to be built on top of something like that, not reinvent it. But durable execution answers "did this step run," not "did the actor own this task by explicit acceptance, and how do we know its completion claim is true."

Running it locally

Requirements: Node.js 24, PostgreSQL, pnpm.

pnpm install

Set the required environment variables:

DATABASE_URL=<your Postgres connection string>

MCP_ACCESS_TOKEN=

Push the schema and start the API server:

pnpm --filter @workspace/db run push

pnpm --filter @workspace/api-server run dev

Create at least one actor before calling any tool. Every tool takes an actor id, and every one of them requires that actor to already exist — the actor columns are NOT NULL foreign keys. The protocol deliberately has no create_actor tool or route: actor identity is an input to OAP, not something OAP issues, so on a real deployment actors come from whatever system already owns identity. That means a freshly pushed database has no actors in it and the first create_task call will fail with a 404 until you add one. For local development there is a seed script:

pnpm --filter @workspace/scripts run seed-actor alice human "Alice"

It is a plain script, not part of the protocol surface — it is never imported by the server and is not reachable over HTTP.

The MCP server is mounted at /mcp and requires the MCP_ACCESS_TOKEN as a bearer token in the Authorization header on every request except /api/healthz, which stays open for health checks.

Connect a real MCP client (e.g. Claude Code):

claude mcp add --transport http opp http://localhost:5000/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer <your-token>"

Running the tests

The suite covers the protocol's concurrency guarantees, so it needs a real PostgreSQL instance — it exercises genuinely simultaneous transactions and cannot run against an in-process or single-connection substitute.

pnpm --filter @workspace/api-server run test

Tests connect to postgresql://opp:opptest@127.0.0.1:55432/opp_test by default. Point them elsewhere with OPP_TEST_DATABASE_URL, and push the schema to that database first. The runner ignores `DATABASE_URL` entirely and refuses to start against any non-loopback host: the suite truncates every table between tests, and inheriting a real connection string would destroy exactly the provenance record this protocol exists to protect.

Status

This is an early, personally-tested project, not a polished product. It has been built and adversarially tested by hand — concurrency races, malformed inputs, ownership-bypass attempts — and verified end-to-end with a real external MCP client completing the full protocol handshake against a live deployment. The ownership and attestation guarantees that hand-testing covered are now pinned by an automated suite that runs the races concurrently against a real database. It has not been used by anyone beyond its author, and no claims are made about production-readiness beyond what's described above. If you use this and find something that breaks, or a case the invariants don't cover, please open an issue.

License

MIT

问 PopNx