{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "activepieces",
    "name": "Activepieces API + MCP",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/activepieces",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Activepieces API + MCP\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/activepieces, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade C, 57.8 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on Activepieces API + MCP: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 55 out of 100, up to 9 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 55: Better Stack status page at status.activepieces.com with two components, API Health and Worker Health (20). One incident in the last 90 days, Worker Health degraded for 33 minutes on 26 July 2026, and none on the API (20). No request-rate limit for the API found. Run limits are published with numbers (10 minutes per run, 1 GB worker memory, 10 MB step files) (5 of 15). No 429 or backoff guidance found (0). No SLA on the pricing page (0). API and MCP server are generally available (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Payments \u0026 pricing, 35 out of 100, up to 8.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 35: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices and $0.007 per extra credit are public, but the pricing page doesn't say what one credit buys (15). Free plan of 1,000 credits a month, no card and no time limit (20). A person signs up in the browser or installs an instance (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 3. Security \u0026 auth, 64 out of 100, up to 6.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 64: REST API keys as bearer tokens per platform, with no scopes found. The MCP server signs in with OAuth and PKCE, is bound to one project, and grants sit on a revocation list. It has one `mcp` scope (22). Tool groups can be turned off per project, each tool checks the user's project permission, and nothing asks for confirmation before a destructive tool (13). Tools never return connection secrets and `ap_setup_guide` sends the user to the UI, but run output from third-party apps comes back with no injection guidance (6). Enterprise audit log with event streaming records agent writes. The docs say MCP tool calls aren't recorded in it, only in an activity feed (10). SECURITY.md, private GitHub reporting, nine published advisories and a private, invite-only bug bounty. No security.txt and no SOC 2 or ISO report found (13).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 4. Agent ergonomics, 65 out of 100, up to 5.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 65: 45 MCP tools in seven groups, so 5, plus 10 back because every group but Discovery can be switched off per project and `ap_search_actions` finds actions by task description instead of listing pieces (15). Seek pagination with `limit` and `cursor`, and filters on list endpoints (18). API errors aren't documented in the spec (8). 45 of 48 tool files set `readOnlyHint`, 17 mark `destructiveHint`, and `idempotentHint` is set too (17). Few required parameters, an embed SDK in JavaScript, no REST client in a second language (7).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 5. Schema \u0026 documentation, 80 out of 100, up to 3.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 80: OpenAPI 3.1 file at docs/openapi.json with 65 paths and 94 operations, and zod input schemas on every MCP tool (25). llms.txt per the 30 September check, and the docs are MDX in the public repository (10). Tool descriptions state purpose and consequences, for example `ap_delete_flow` says it can't be undone, but rarely when not to call (14). Typed inputs with IDs and enums, few free-form blobs (12). The OpenAPI file lists only 200, 201 and 204 responses, no error bodies, though the docs have request examples (7). Monthly dated changelog and a breaking-changes page, but the spec's version is 0.0.0 (12).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 6. Transparency \u0026 trust, 76 out of 100, up to 2.1 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 70, provenance 82.\n\nWhy it scored 76: MIT core with enterprise folders under a commercial licence, both stated in `LICENSE` and the docs (27). Cloud run data kept 30 days per the limits page. The privacy and terms pages render only with JavaScript and we found no DPA or subprocessor list (12). A breaking-changes page with what to do per change, and a dated monthly changelog (15). Product analytics on by default (`AP_TELEMETRY_ENABLED` defaults to true), documented with the event list and an opt-out. Licensed instances also send a daily deployment snapshot, on by default with its own switch (16).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Domain age: activepieces.com, registered 2021-10-18 (4 years) (7 of 15)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## 7. Maintenance \u0026 community, 80 out of 100, up to 1.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 80: 0.92.1 tagged on 30 September 2026 (30). 48 tags in the last 90 days (20). 381 open issues, labelled by area and priority. The newest open issue dates from 14 August 2026 and we couldn't see reply times (15). An embed SDK on npm, no official REST SDK and no entry in the official MCP registry (5). CI runs typecheck, build, unit, API and end-to-end tests, plus a DAST workflow (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- GHSA-m992-8rcw-vmrx, published 9 August 2026, critical (CVSS 9.2). The Bull-Board queue dashboard at /api/ui skipped its auth check in 0.80.0 to 0.84.0, so anyone could read and change background job queues on self-hosted instances that had turned the dashboard on. Fixed in 0.84.1 (https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces/security/advisories/GHSA-m992-8rcw-vmrx).\n- Three high-severity advisories on 17 July 2026, command injection through a Code step name (GHSA-3pfv-m69p-5fv5), a V8 isolate sandbox bypass (GHSA-gr3h-c2j7-r52g) and cross-tenant data exposure through the Code piece sandbox cache (GHSA-5h2x-g6m3-grmq). All fixed and published, so the deduction is reduced (https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces/security/advisories).\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- Whether Cloud Free and Plus accounts can create REST API keys, given the docs and the pricing page disagree\n- How many credits a run or a step costs\n- Whether Activepieces Cloud was exposed to the July 2026 cross-tenant Code piece cache flaw\n- unchecked: the privacy policy and terms text, which need JavaScript\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- Docs say API keys come from the platform dashboard in Platform and Enterprise editions, while the pricing page lists the API on every plan\n- OpenAPI file documents no error responses, and no rate limits are published\n- A critical and three high advisories in July and August 2026\n- Privacy and terms pages need JavaScript, and no DPA or subprocessor list was found\n- MCP tool calls aren't written to the audit log\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Run `ap_validate_flow` before publishing a flow\n- Use `ap_search_actions` with a plain task description rather than listing pieces\n- Turn off the Flow Building and Tables groups for a project the agent should only read\n- Page with `limit` and `cursor` and stop when `next` is null\n- Cloud runs stop at 10 minutes of active time. Waits and approvals don't count\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- 1.0 with support window\n- MCP calls audited\n- scoped REST keys\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "C",
    "score": 57.8,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 55,
        "maxGain": 9,
        "reason": "Better Stack status page at status.activepieces.com with two components, API Health and Worker Health (20). One incident in the last 90 days, Worker Health degraded for 33 minutes on 26 July 2026, and none on the API (20). No request-rate limit for the API found. Run limits are published with numbers (10 minutes per run, 1 GB worker memory, 10 MB step files) (5 of 15). No 429 or backoff guidance found (0). No SLA on the pricing page (0). API and MCP server are generally available (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 35,
        "maxGain": 8.1,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices and $0.007 per extra credit are public, but the pricing page doesn't say what one credit buys (15). Free plan of 1,000 credits a month, no card and no time limit (20). A person signs up in the browser or installs an instance (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 64,
        "maxGain": 6.3,
        "reason": "REST API keys as bearer tokens per platform, with no scopes found. The MCP server signs in with OAuth and PKCE, is bound to one project, and grants sit on a revocation list. It has one `mcp` scope (22). Tool groups can be turned off per project, each tool checks the user's project permission, and nothing asks for confirmation before a destructive tool (13). Tools never return connection secrets and `ap_setup_guide` sends the user to the UI, but run output from third-party apps comes back with no injection guidance (6). Enterprise audit log with event streaming records agent writes. The docs say MCP tool calls aren't recorded in it, only in an activity feed (10). SECURITY.md, private GitHub reporting, nine published advisories and a private, invite-only bug bounty. No security.txt and no SOC 2 or ISO report found (13).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 65,
        "maxGain": 5.7,
        "reason": "45 MCP tools in seven groups, so 5, plus 10 back because every group but Discovery can be switched off per project and `ap_search_actions` finds actions by task description instead of listing pieces (15). Seek pagination with `limit` and `cursor`, and filters on list endpoints (18). API errors aren't documented in the spec (8). 45 of 48 tool files set `readOnlyHint`, 17 mark `destructiveHint`, and `idempotentHint` is set too (17). Few required parameters, an embed SDK in JavaScript, no REST client in a second language (7).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 80,
        "maxGain": 3.3,
        "reason": "OpenAPI 3.1 file at docs/openapi.json with 65 paths and 94 operations, and zod input schemas on every MCP tool (25). llms.txt per the 30 September check, and the docs are MDX in the public repository (10). Tool descriptions state purpose and consequences, for example `ap_delete_flow` says it can't be undone, but rarely when not to call (14). Typed inputs with IDs and enums, few free-form blobs (12). The OpenAPI file lists only 200, 201 and 204 responses, no error bodies, though the docs have request examples (7). Monthly dated changelog and a breaking-changes page, but the spec's version is 0.0.0 (12).",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 76,
        "maxGain": 2.1,
        "reason": "MIT core with enterprise folders under a commercial licence, both stated in `LICENSE` and the docs (27). Cloud run data kept 30 days per the limits page. The privacy and terms pages render only with JavaScript and we found no DPA or subprocessor list (12). A breaking-changes page with what to do per change, and a dated monthly changelog (15). Product analytics on by default (`AP_TELEMETRY_ENABLED` defaults to true), documented with the event list and an opt-out. Licensed instances also send a daily deployment snapshot, on by default with its own switch (16).",
        "blend": "editorial 70, provenance 82",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 80,
        "maxGain": 1.8,
        "reason": "0.92.1 tagged on 30 September 2026 (30). 48 tags in the last 90 days (20). 381 open issues, labelled by area and priority. The newest open issue dates from 14 August 2026 and we couldn't see reply times (15). An embed SDK on npm, no official REST SDK and no entry in the official MCP registry (5). CI runs typecheck, build, unit, API and end-to-end tests, plus a DAST workflow (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Domain age",
        "value": "activepieces.com, registered 2021-10-18 (4 years)",
        "points": 7,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "GHSA-m992-8rcw-vmrx, published 9 August 2026, critical (CVSS 9.2). The Bull-Board queue dashboard at /api/ui skipped its auth check in 0.80.0 to 0.84.0, so anyone could read and change background job queues on self-hosted instances that had turned the dashboard on. Fixed in 0.84.1 (https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces/security/advisories/GHSA-m992-8rcw-vmrx).",
      "Three high-severity advisories on 17 July 2026, command injection through a Code step name (GHSA-3pfv-m69p-5fv5), a V8 isolate sandbox bypass (GHSA-gr3h-c2j7-r52g) and cross-tenant data exposure through the Code piece sandbox cache (GHSA-5h2x-g6m3-grmq). All fixed and published, so the deduction is reduced (https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces/security/advisories)."
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Whether Cloud Free and Plus accounts can create REST API keys, given the docs and the pricing page disagree",
      "How many credits a run or a step costs",
      "Whether Activepieces Cloud was exposed to the July 2026 cross-tenant Code piece cache flaw",
      "unchecked: the privacy policy and terms text, which need JavaScript"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "Docs say API keys come from the platform dashboard in Platform and Enterprise editions, while the pricing page lists the API on every plan",
      "OpenAPI file documents no error responses, and no rate limits are published",
      "A critical and three high advisories in July and August 2026",
      "Privacy and terms pages need JavaScript, and no DPA or subprocessor list was found",
      "MCP tool calls aren't written to the audit log"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Run `ap_validate_flow` before publishing a flow",
      "Use `ap_search_actions` with a plain task description rather than listing pieces",
      "Turn off the Flow Building and Tables groups for a project the agent should only read",
      "Page with `limit` and `cursor` and stop when `next` is null",
      "Cloud runs stop at 10 minutes of active time. Waits and approvals don't count"
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "1.0 with support window",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "MCP calls audited",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "scoped REST keys",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-04",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}