Loading the registry…
MCP Server for Odoo Integration
We found this by crawling public sources and nobody has attested to it. That is how most of the registry gets here, and it is not a mark against the artifact — it only means no authenticated act of publication is on record. An artifact can be the vendor's own and still appear here.
This artifact ships from 2 sources and their verdicts differ. The worst is github (Flagged). Installing from a cleaner source does not mean the others are safe — check the source you actually install from.
github: https://github.com/hungdannt/mcp-server-odoo, 19 findings
Choose your runtime: the CLI writes the mcpServers config entry for that target.
nerlo install --target claude-code -- odoo-mcp
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
5 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v2.0.11
7 findings · 7.0s
v0.3.74
6 findings · 1.0s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 3.2s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 3.2s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 8.1s
v1.4.0
None of the entry points this scanner reads were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
vv0.3.2
No Go packages were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.1s
No report in this scan: govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2026 | Scan Halted | — | agentshield ·n/a: not applicablecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral: completenerlo-install-instruction: completecapslock ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-multi-source: complete | rejected |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Flagged badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
Out of 13 findings across every scanner that examined this package.
Not reviewed is not the same as clean. Those 8 findings stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity, as they would have without this review.
The model could have called any of these a false positive and did not.
1 AAK-ANTHROPIC-SDK-001
Files: run_server.py · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-DNS-REBIND-002
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-SDK-CVE-2026-52869-001
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-3P-001
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SUPPLY-004
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
5 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: TOOL_ABUSE_UNDECLARED_NETWORK, AAK-SEC-MD-001, DATA_EXFIL_NETWORK_REQUESTS and 1 more · Files: /repo/repo/CHANGELOG.md, SECURITY.md, /repo/src/odoo_mcp/odoo_client.py and 1 more · reported by cisco-skill-scanner, agent-audit-kit
3 The model did not answer for these findings.
Rules: DATA_EXFIL_NETWORK_REQUESTS, SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION · Files: /repo/src/odoo_mcp/odoo_client.py, /repo/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical vulnerability and high-risk capabilities detected.
A critical vulnerability is present in `/repo/src/odoo_mcp/server.py`. High-severity findings indicate potential for DNS rebinding, use of an SDK with a known CVE, and third-party OAuth integration that may involve credential access. The artifact also exhibits undeclared network egress and uses the Anthropic SDK, indicating external communication capabilities. These findings require thorough review of the artifact's network interactions and data handling.
Concern level assessed by the review: Critical. This is the review's scale, not the registry badge.
Reviewed by gemini-2.5-flash. The model sees the findings, not your code, and cannot change a score.