AI legal compliance: contract review, risk scoring, EU/CN AI act, watermark check. 8 MCP tools.
https://legal-api-legal-m-service-nubqrvluix.cn-hangzhou.fcapp.run/mcpneeds credentials
| Last 30 probes | |
|---|---|
| Last seen healthy | not once, in the days we have probed |
| Completed sessions | 0% of the last 7 probes · 0% of the last 30 |
| Handshake latency | median 10337 ms, 95th 14143 ms |
| Tools listed | — |
| Protocol answered | — |
| Transport | streamable-http |
| Last detail | HTTP 403 |
[](https://referencesource.org/mcp-health/server/run-fcapp-cn-hangzhou-legal-api-legal-m-service-nubqrvluix-legal-compliance-api/)
The badge shows the most recent probe. It is generated from the same file this page is, updates once a day, and needs no key.
One HTTP POST carrying a JSON-RPC initialize, and if
that succeeds, a tools/list. Nothing here is a score, a rating or a
judgement about whether the server is any good — only whether an ordinary MCP
client could complete a session with it on the day we asked.
“Needs credentials” is not a fault: it means the endpoint wants
an account, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for it to want.
The tool contract row is a digest of what
tools/list returned — each tool's name, description and input
schema, hashed — so that a rename, a newly-required field or a rewritten
description can be spotted even though none of them breaks the connection. We
keep the digests and nothing else: no tool name, description or schema of
anybody's is stored or republished here, which is also why this can say that a
contract moved and by how much, but not what it now says.
The method and the daily totals · every server we probe, A–Z · feed.json · licence · corrections and removals: [email protected]