Frequently Asked
Questions

A source-reviewed catalogue of MCP servers, skills, libraries, and agents that may support real-world evidence workflows. It adds an RWE interpretation layer to public project information: workflow fit, documented capabilities, limitations, operational scope, and evidence state.

Black Swan Causal Labs maintains the registry as an independent, living research resource. Editorial judgments are based on publicly available sources and are revised when the underlying evidence changes.

A public MCP server, connector, agent skill, library with an agent-facing interface, plugin, or orchestrated agent workflow must support an identifiable RWE, HEOR, epidemiology, public-health, evidence-synthesis, or necessary enabling activity. It must also have enough public evidence to describe its identity and function responsibly.

The registry can observe only publicly discoverable work. Private repositories, internal enterprise systems, unpublished tools, access-controlled packages, and public projects with insufficient searchable metadata may not be found. Absence means “not found in the searched public sources,” not “does not exist.”

No. Inclusion is not a security, privacy, clinical, methodological, regulatory, or quality certification. A project may be relevant to an RWE workflow and still require substantial technical, governance, and subject-matter review before use.

Public repository files, documentation, manifests, packages, or listings were examined without running the project. Static review can confirm documented implementation and scope, but it cannot establish that installation succeeds, tools behave as claimed, outputs are correct, or sensitive data are protected.

Not unless a record explicitly says so. The current public batches primarily reflect identity, metadata, documentation, and implementation review. Runtime testing is a separate evidence level and must be performed in an isolated, risk-scoped environment.

Workflow-fit labels are concise editorial translations of documented capabilities. They identify a plausible role in an RWE process; they do not establish fitness for a particular study, dataset, decision, or regulatory use.

Collection-level claims remain at collection level. A capability belonging to one constituent package or skill is attributed to that component, not to the entire collection. Components may receive separate records when the additional detail materially improves discovery.

Public-source discovery and surveillance are designed to run weekly. New or materially changed projects enter a private review queue. Approved records are added to the website and public workbook in reviewed batches rather than being published automatically.

The search combines structured registries, public registry repositories, GitHub repository and code search, curated catalogues, predefined RWE terminology, and citation chaining. Each run records its sources, retrieval methods, dates, and coverage limitations.

Canonical repositories, packages, aliases, redirects, and cross-listings are compared before a record is treated as new. Missing projects remain in the history as unavailable rather than being silently deleted, and reappearing projects are flagged for review.

Yes. Submit the canonical public source and a short explanation of its RWE relevance through the Black Swan Causal Labs contact form. Suggestions enter the same review process as discovered candidates and are not guaranteed inclusion.

Yes. The public dataset and original editorial content are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Website source code is licensed under MIT. Third-party names, trademarks, source descriptions, and linked materials remain subject to their respective owners’ rights.