Is Adaptive Cards MCP safe to use?

Adaptive Cards MCP has an HVTrust score of 41.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1176 of 1387 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Adaptive Cards MCP?

Adaptive Cards MCP scores 41.9/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 33 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Adaptive Cards MCP

Repository

AI-powered Adaptive Card MCP server — 9 tools for generating, validating, optimizing cards for Teams, Outlook, Copilot, ChatGPT. npm: adaptive-cards-mcp

MCP Servers TypeScript Listed MIT

Is Adaptive Cards MCP safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 6%

Last push 144d ago

Advisories None known

Compare Adaptive Cards MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Adaptive Cards MCP scores 41.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1176 of 1387 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 4.7/10; 6% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (adaptive-cards-mcp); last pushed 2026-06-20. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Adaptive Cards MCP could raise its score

Each line changes one public signal and recomputes with the live scoring function. The gains don't add up exactly, because the score is capped near the top.

Publish build provenance for its packagesnpm publish --provenance from CI +14.7 → 56.6 C · #441 of 779
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 4.7 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Fuzzing 0 +8.9 → 50.8 C · #560 of 779
Sign every commit6% signed today +4.7 → 46.6 D · #619 of 779

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Adaptive Cards MCP and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.

Source Partly signed

github.com/VikrantSingh01/adaptive-cards-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-06-20. 6% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
Review and release Mixed

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 4.7/10 (scanned Nov 7, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection8
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies10
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 8

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 3

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 0

Packaging -1

Pinned-Dependencies 10

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 0
Published packages Linked, not attested
- npm adaptive-cards-mcp Source link points back to this repo No build attestation
Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: adaptive-cards-mcp 2.3.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-10).

Changes to this chain

2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 4.7/10

Evidence behind this score

Coverage B: 3 of 5 independent evidence types found.

GitHub repository data
Package downloads
Supply-chain checks
Public actions (missing)
Community mentions (missing)

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues Adaptive Cards MCP’s score as an Ed25519-signed credential, valid for 7 days. You can check it offline against HVTracker’s published key; if anyone changes a number after signing, verification fails.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

What this score doesn’t check

It covers who ships the code, not what the code does. It doesn’t read tool descriptions or prompts for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you connect it, such as Cisco MCP Scanner or Snyk Agent Scan.

How Adaptive Cards MCP compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Adaptive Cards MCP’s 41.9.

Where the 41.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

41.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Adaptive Cards MCP MCP Servers average (779 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

6.2 / 25

4.6 below avg 10.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

2.9 below avg 13.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

12.5 / 17

in line with avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

2.4 / 20

9.9 below avg 12.3

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

6.0 / 20

1.6 below avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-10-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#1163 → #1173)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 4.7/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.

Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 144 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

18.5

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#675

In MCP Servers

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade D reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage B is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (3 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-06-20

144 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

npm

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #1176

Analysis

Activity Inputs

18.5 / 100

StarsRepository reach

9.2 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

5.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

4.2 / 20

Common questions about Adaptive Cards MCP

Public trust evidence for Adaptive Cards MCP is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.

Does Adaptive Cards MCP publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Adaptive Cards MCP. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does Adaptive Cards MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Adaptive Cards MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.7/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.

Is Adaptive Cards MCP actively maintained?

Slowing down. Last push was 144 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.

What license does Adaptive Cards MCP use?

Adaptive Cards MCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Adaptive Cards MCP's commits signed?

5% of the last 100 commits to Adaptive Cards MCP are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.

Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface

Scored in HVTrust

These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →

MCP Server Support

high confidence

Implemented

Adaptive Cards MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

3 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

None detected

No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

Package Provenance Drift

high confidence

Match

Published package metadata matches the tracked repo

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

How this surface has changed

Detected changes to Adaptive Cards MCP's runtime surface and supply-chain posture, from daily public-signal snapshots. A change here means our detectors see something different — a genuinely changed capability, or better evidence of an existing one.

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Anthropic, Azure OpenAI, OpenAI

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-18

Activity Went Stale

No commits for 90 days

Maintain Adaptive Cards MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Adaptive Cards MCP from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-10-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#1163 → #1173)

2026-10-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#1104 → #1115)

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Anthropic, Azure OpenAI, OpenAI

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 116 spots (#1177 → #1061)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 24.9pts (20.0 → 44.9)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1177

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-20

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#1045 → #1056)

2026-09-18

Activity Went Stale

No commits for 90 days

2026-09-12

Rank Moved

Rank rose 240 spots (#1280 → #1040)

2026-09-12

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 15.1pts (30.4 → 45.5)

2026-09-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#1261 → #1274)

2026-09-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#1234 → #1253)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 20 spots (#1214 → #1234)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#1196 → #1214)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 43 spots (#1153 → #1196)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 40 spots (#1113 → #1153)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 42 spots (#1071 → #1113)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 30 spots (#1041 → #1071)

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 56 spots (#985 → #1041)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 48 spots (#937 → #985)

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 34 spots (#903 → #937)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#876 → #903)

2026-08-26

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 4.7/10

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank rose 357 spots (#1233 → #876)

2026-08-26

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 14.8pts (16.3 → 31.1)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 26 spots (#1201 → #1227)

GitHub → npm: adaptive-cards-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/adaptive-cards-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/adaptive-cards-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/adaptive-cards-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/adaptive-cards-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON

Adaptive Cards MCP

How Adaptive Cards MCP could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages Linked, not attested

What you install today No known advisories

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How Adaptive Cards MCP compares in MCP Servers

Where the 41.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Adaptive Cards MCP

AI agent surface

Maintain Adaptive Cards MCP?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers