CanopiiCanopiiAll serversEnterprise →

davinci-resolve-mcp MCP Server Security Report

samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp

MCP server integration for DaVinci Resolve Studio

Security Trust Score
Grade C · Needs review
Tier 1 · Public sourceHigh confidence · 98%latest vmain@9545d6d Repository
Declared MCP capabilities
ResourcesPrompts

Run it securely

Run it through Canopii Gateway — policy enforcement, audit trail, and per-user attribution on every call.

Are you the maintainer?

Verify with GitHub to get alerted whenever samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp changes score — and claim the badge for your README.

Claim this server
1 issue capping this score
  • mediumNo over-broad / destructive tools — 1 over-broad tool(s)

The short answer

Is davinci-resolve-mcp safe to use?
davinci-resolve-mcp scores 65/100 (grade C) on the Canopii Trust Index, and carries 1 confirmed security failure that caps its score: No over-broad / destructive tools. It passes 16 of the 21 controls that apply to it.
What security issues does davinci-resolve-mcp have?
davinci-resolve-mcp fails 1 control: No over-broad / destructive tools. Each failure on this page carries the evidence behind it — the file and line, dependency, or CVE that decided it.
How reliable is the security score for davinci-resolve-mcp?
We could evaluate 98% of the controls that apply to davinci-resolve-mcp. Scores are deterministic — the same source always produces the same score — and a partially-scannable server cannot present a high one, because confidence caps the result. The scanner is open source, so this score can be reproduced independently.
How was davinci-resolve-mcp scored?
Its published source was scanned against a fixed catalog of weighted security controls covering code safety, committed secrets, dependency vulnerabilities, tool-description integrity, authentication and transport, and maintenance. A confirmed flaw caps the score outright regardless of what else passes. The full rubric is published.
Reputation2.2kstars245forks0open issues36d agolast commit2yage

Security controlslatest scored version vmain@9545d6d

Each control is evaluated deterministically with evidence. The score is earned from passing controls; a failed guard caps it.

Model–MCP Runtime Guardrails

  • Fail
    User-in-the-Loop / Approval Scopeguard1 over-broad tool(s)

    No over-broad or destructive tools (arbitrary shell, bulk-delete) that warrant human approval. How many servers fail this?

    offline_ref

    Fix: Scope tools narrowly; avoid arbitrary command execution and destructive defaults.

  • Pass
    Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) Defensesguardno injection markers

    Tool/prompt/resource text is free of hidden instructions that could hijack the agent.

  • Pass
    Strict JSON Schema EnforcementadditionalProperties:false present

    Tool inputs are constrained (additionalProperties:false), so unexpected arguments can't be smuggled in.

  • Pass
    Tool Definition Integrityguardtool definitions stable; no risky changes in version history

    Every consecutive version pair is diffed for new injection markers or destructive scope — a risky diff anywhere in history is a rug-pull (fail, durable); benign description drift warns.

Application Security Checks

  • Warn
    No path traversalguard11 occurrences

    Naive path checks let tools read/write outside intended directories (EscapeRoute-class).

    bin/davinci-resolve-mcp.mjs:345resolve-advanced/scripts/calib-harness.mjs:24resolve-advanced/scripts/calib-harness.mjs:92resolve-advanced/server/editorial.mjs:115

    Fix: Resolve to a canonical path and verify containment; reject ../ and symlinks.

  • Warn
    No known-vulnerable dependencies9 of 192 runtime deps vulnerable; worst high

    Runtime dependencies (parsed from the lockfile) are scanned against OSV.dev for published CVEs. Advisory: flagged dependencies lower the score but don't hard-cap it, since transitive reachability is unproven.

    @hono/[email protected] — GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9[email protected] — GHSA-xcpc-8h2w-3j85[email protected] — GHSA-4c8g-83qw-93j6[email protected] — GHSA-7p8r-x3mc-p8w7

    Fix: Upgrade the flagged dependencies past their fixed versions.

  • Pass
    No command-injection sinksguardno sinks found

    Untrusted tool input reaching a shell yields remote code execution.

  • Pass
    No dynamic code executionguardno sinks found

    eval()/exec()/Function() on tool-derived strings allows arbitrary code execution.

  • Pass
    No SSRF sinksguardno sinks found

    Fetching tool-supplied URLs can pivot into internal networks and metadata services.

  • Pass
    No unsafe deserializationguardno sinks found

    pickle/yaml.load/etc. on untrusted data can execute code.

  • Pass
    No committed secretsguardno secrets found

    Hardcoded keys/tokens in published source are live credentials an attacker can use.

  • Pass
    Credentials sourced from environmentreads credentials from environment

    Reading secrets from env/secret stores avoids hardcoding them.

  • Pass
    Dependencies pinned (lockfile)lockfile present

    A lockfile makes installs reproducible and resistant to silent dependency swaps.

  • Pass
    Actively maintainedrecent commits

    Unmaintained servers don't receive security fixes.

  • Pass
    Repository not archivedguardactive

    Archived repositories will never be patched.

  • Pass
    Declares a licenseMIT

    A clear license is required for legal enterprise use.

  • Pass
    Has a security policySECURITY.md present

    A SECURITY.md gives a private path to report vulnerabilities.

  • Pass
    Adoption & popularityestablished adoption

    A small, capped nudge from stars/downloads — widely-used servers get more eyes on bugs. It can never offset a real security failure.

  • Not checked
    Signed releasesnot evaluated

    Signed releases let consumers verify artifacts weren't tampered with.

  • N/A
    No install/post-install scriptsguardno published package

    install hooks run arbitrary code on every consumer at install time.

  • N/A
    Package name not typosquattingguardno published package

    Names mimicking popular packages are a common malware delivery vector.

  • N/A
    Published with provenanceno published package

    Build provenance attests the artifact was built from the claimed source by CI.

  • N/A
    Established maintainerno published package

    Brand-new / single anonymous maintainers raise takeover and malware risk.

Transport & Trust Model

  • Warn
    Execution Sandboxingruns natively (no container image)

    A container/sandbox image limits blast radius; a server that runs natively has full host access.

    Fix: Ship a Dockerfile/Containerfile (or document a sandboxed run) so the server runs isolated.

  • Pass
    Network Exposureno bind-all detected

    Binding 0.0.0.0 or exposing debug inspectors widens the attack surface.

  • N/A
    Transport Encryption (TLS)guardno remote endpoints

    Plaintext HTTP exposes traffic and bearer tokens to interception.

  • N/A
    IAM / Authentication Scopingno remote endpoints

    OAuth 2.1 / Protected Resource Metadata gates who can invoke tools.

  • N/A
    Live Endpoint Reachablenot dynamically scanned

    A dynamic scan connected to the declared remote endpoint and it responded — verified live, not a dead URL.

  • N/A
    Authentication Enforced (live)not dynamically scanned

    If the server declares auth is required, it must actually reject anonymous clients. Serving tools to unauthenticated callers is a real exposure.

Embed this score

Add the live badge to your README — it updates automatically on every rescan.

Canopii Trust Score badge preview
markdown[![Canopii Trust Score](https://index.canopii.dev/api/badge/samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp)](https://index.canopii.dev/server/samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp)
html<a href="https://index.canopii.dev/server/samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp"><img src="https://index.canopii.dev/api/badge/samuelgursky/davinci-resolve-mcp" alt="Canopii Trust Score" /></a>

Versions

VersionScoreStatus
vmain@6337d8c66Cscored
vmain@ad24d1166Cscored
vmain@524305266Cscored
vmain@410dbac63Cscored
vmain@16e4a3963Cscored
vmain@4a643b663Cscored
vmain@a92d52363Cscored
vmain@919ed9c61Cscored
vmain@b5166ea63Cscored
vmain@fe89d0663Cscored
vmain@c8fbe1863Cscored
vmain@f4cd0f963Cscored
vmain@240725363Cscored
vmain@91d03a561Cscored
vmain@9f955ab63Cscored
vmain@4c42f4263Cscored
vmain@5a1db6763Cscored
vmain@3938db563Cscored
vmain@0b0009961Cscored
vmain@5a3abd562Cscored
vmain@3e7252962Cscored
vmain@190fe2c65Cscored
vmain@c3c075b65Cscored
vmain@07a636b65Cscored
vmain@f5b273565Cscored
vmain@132e13465Cscored
vmain@9545d6dlatest65Cscored
vmain@64a244616Fscored
vmain@2998ec316Fscored
vmain@1c0148c15Fscored
vmain@9487ecf16Fscored
vmain@123e84464Cscored

Wondering how this compares? The MCP Security Index tracks grade distribution, committed secrets, and missing authentication across the whole ecosystem, refreshed monthly.