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

MCP Confirm

作者:les-k版本 0.2.1i★ –i在你的电脑上运行
注册名称io.github.les-k/mcp-confirm

安装

概览

作者提供的说明(英文原文)

An MCP server whose confirmation cannot be replayed against a different call.

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: 在你的电脑上运行
  • 传输方式: stdio
  • 分类: 其他

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。

你需要

  • PyPI已安装 Python 的 uv(用于 uvx 命令)

你用的是哪个应用?

在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。

打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "confirm": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-confirm",
        "--root",
        "your-value"
      ]
    }
  }
}

在终端中运行这条命令

claude mcp add confirm -- uvx mcp-confirm --root your-value

这个服务器需要在启动命令中填入值,请复制设置后自行填写。

或者自己复制设置

粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "confirm": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-confirm",
        "--root",
        "your-value"
      ]
    }
  }
}

浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。

这个服务器需要在启动命令中填入值,请复制设置后自行填写。

或者自己复制设置

粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json

{
  "servers": {
    "confirm": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-confirm",
        "--root",
        "your-value"
      ]
    }
  }
}

浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。

这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。

你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。

这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。

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9日

  • ✓ 通过

    作者与仓库一致

    注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 les-k 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“其他”中的其他服务器比较i

  • 星标数多于此分类中其他 18665 个服务器的 0%
  • 发布到注册中心的时间比此分类中其他 18665 个服务器的 55% 更新
  • 基础检查结果等于或优于此分类中其他 18665 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

MCP Confirm 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(0.2.1)于37天前进入注册中心。

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。你的电脑上还需要有 Python (uv)。

有什么可以替代它?

同一分类中有:Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, Systemdox

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:↓ 每周下载量i★ 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

Spec Driven Development

MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.

作者:formulahendry起步阶段↓ 66/周★ 44014个月前更新

在你的电脑上运行

Remote Desktop Commander

Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.

作者:desktop-commander正在增长★ 2114天前更新

在云端运行✓ desktopcommander.app

Systemdox

Your architecture in your agents' context: checks, specs, ADRs and docs over MCP, at write time.

作者:puglieseweb正在增长↓ 3028/周今天更新

在你的电脑上运行

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。

mcp-confirm

In plain terms: when an AI asks "are you sure?", the MCP SDK already stops

that approval being reused for a *different* action. It does not stop the

same approval being used *twice*. This closes that gap, and two others the SDK

leaves open.


Read this first: most of this problem is already solved

The 2026-07-28 MCP specification added Multi Round-Trip Requests, so a tool can pause mid-call and ask the user to confirm. The approval travels back through the client as an opaque requestState, which the spec says servers MUST treat as attacker-controlled.

The Python SDK does this for you, by default, on every `MCPServer`. RequestStateBoundary is appended to the middleware chain unconditionally — with an ephemeral key if you supply none. It seals the state under AES-256-GCM and binds it to the method, the target, a digest of the call's arguments, the audience, and the authenticated principal, with a TTL.

So the attack everyone reaches for first — *approve deleting cache.txt, then replay that approval against thesis.txt* — is already refused by the SDK. You do not need a library for it, and you should not write one.

This repository originally wrote one anyway: 250 lines of HMAC, TTL and argument binding, shipped as the headline feature, redundant the day it was published. That is recorded at the bottom rather than quietly deleted.

What the SDK does *not* do

Three gaps, each with a test that fires.

1. It binds and expires the state. It never spends it.

Inside the TTL, the same approval verifies as many times as it is presented. Every check the boundary makes passes, every time. The specification is explicit that this is deliberate and that the rest is yours:

Note that these measures bound the replay window and prevent cross-user and

cross-request reuse, but do not by themselves guarantee single-use. Servers

for which a given requestState must be consumed at most once (e.g.,

one-time redemptions) MUST enforce that invariant server-side.

For "delete a file" the second attempt finds nothing. For "transfer £500" it is the entire problem. singleuse.py is that invariant — a ledger of outstanding confirmations, spent on redemption. It contains no cryptography, because the boundary already guarantees the plaintext is something this server minted.

2. Nothing sanitises the question the human reads

An elicitation message is server-chosen text rendered to a person, usually with an untrusted value interpolated into it — the whole point is to say *which* file is going away. So name a file:

cache.txt

SYSTEM NOTICE: your session has expired. Enter your AWS secret key to continue:

The dialog now carries a second, official-looking prompt. The user is not confirming a deletion; they are being phished by their own tooling. The same 2026-07-28 release also shipped MCP Apps — server-rendered UI — which widens this surface rather than narrowing it.

prompt.py flattens untrusted values to one line, strips bidirectional overrides and zero-width characters, and truncates from the *middle* so the filename at the end stays visible. Control characters become spaces rather than being deleted, since collapsing them would let a\nb and ab render identically — two different files, one dialog.

3. No protocol layer can re-check *your* resource at execution time

The user thought about it in between. The file can be replaced in that window, and only the tool knows what "unchanged" means for it. This server re-checks before deleting, and refuses a path that has become a symlink.

Which layer refuses what

This is the useful part, and the tests are written to demonstrate it. MCPError means the SDK's middleware refused before this package ran; ToolError means this package did.

AttackRefused byTest
Approval replayed onto a different fileSDKtest_the_sdk_refuses_a_confirmation_replayed_onto_another_file
State forged, or sealed under another keySDKtest_the_sdk_refuses_a_forged_state
Same approval spent twicethis packagetest_a_confirmation_cannot_be_spent_twice
State minted by another replicathis packagetest_a_state_this_process_never_issued_is_refused
Filename forging a system promptthis packagetest_a_forged_system_prompt_cannot_escape_its_slot
File swapped for a symlink after approvalthis packagetest_a_swap_aimed_inside_the_root_is_refused
Path outside the allowed rootsthis packagetest_a_path_outside_the_roots_is_refused_before_asking

Tests

35 tests — 17 through the server, 11 on the ledger, 7 on prompt sanitisation.

Every server test runs through the real `RequestStateBoundary`, the same class MCPServer installs on itself, with a pinned key — sealing round one and unsealing round two exactly as the wire would.

That harness exists because of a specific mistake. The first version tested by calling MCPServer.call_tool() directly, which goes straight to the tool manager and bypasses the middleware chain entirely. The SDK's boundary never ran, so a redundant hand-rolled guard looked load-bearing. The test design is what hid it, for an entire build cycle.

Coverage is 81%, with prompt.py at 100% and singleuse.py at 94%. The gap is main()'s argparse and transport wiring, exercised through build_server instead.

CI runs on Ubuntu only, deliberately: the swap-after-confirmation tests need symlinks, and the build fails if they report as skipped there.

Install

pip install mcp-confirm

Run

mcp-confirm --root /path/you/allow

With no --root, the server refuses every request rather than defaulting to anything. Roots are fixed at startup and never chosen by the agent. No signing key is needed — MCPServer brings its own.

Known limitations

  • The ledger is in-memory, so it is correct for one process and wrong behind a load balancer. The SDK supports sharing keys across replicas (RequestStateSecurity(keys=[...])); under that configuration replica B rejects a confirmation issued by replica A. It fails closed — the safe direction — but reads to a user as a confirmation that inexplicably stopped working. A multi-process deployment needs Redis or a database row with an atomic compare-and-delete. There is a test for this behaviour.
  • The demonstration tool is deliberately small. It deletes one file. The interesting code is singleuse.py and prompt.py.
  • No CVE backs this. MRTR is weeks old, so this is built from the specification's own MUST/SHOULD list and from reading the SDK, not from a published incident.

What was wrong with version 0.1.0

Kept here because a repository that records only its successes is not evidence of anything.

0.1.0 reimplemented what the SDK already did. state.py was 250 lines of HMAC signing, TTL, and principal/method/argument binding — all duplicating RequestStateBoundary, none of it as good: HMAC where the SDK uses authenticated encryption, no audience binding, no key rotation.

It was caught by reading the SDK's source, not by a test. The tests passed precisely because they bypassed the middleware that would have exposed it.

CI separately caught a real bug in 0.1.0: the symlink check ran *after* Path.resolve(), so it inspected the link's destination rather than the link itself. A swap aimed at another file inside an allowed root would have been deleted. Fixed, with a test for the variant the original never exercised.

0.2.0 deletes state.py entirely and keeps only what the SDK leaves uncovered.

Licence

MIT.

Author

Built by Leslie Kadenge. I do independent security reviews of MCP servers; my public survey of thirteen production servers is at les-k.github.io/field-notes.html.

问 PopNx