Is Agent MCP Gateway safe to use?

Agent MCP Gateway has an HVTrust score of 35.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1277 of 1374 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Agent MCP Gateway?

Agent MCP Gateway scores 35.9/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 41 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Agent MCP Gateway

Repository

Provides per-subagent MCP access controls to Claude Code (or any MCP client) across all your MCPs and prevents context window bloat. Loads only 3 tools instead of all your MCP Server's tool definitions. Agents discover tools on-demand, only when needed. Control which servers and individual tools…

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

Is Agent MCP Gateway safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 2.3 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 0%

Last push 343d ago

Advisories None known

Compare Agent MCP Gateway

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Agent MCP Gateway scores 35.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1277 of 1374 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 2.3/10; recent commits are unsigned; no published advisory affects its latest release (agent-mcp-gateway); last pushed 2025-12-02. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Agent MCP Gateway 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 packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +14.7 → 50.6 C · #559 of 778
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 2.3 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +13.9 → 49.8 D · #572 of 778
Sign every commit0% signed today +5.0 → 40.9 D · #687 of 778

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Agent MCP Gateway 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 Unsigned

github.com/roddutra/agent-mcp-gateway, MIT, last pushed 2025-12-02. None of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so no change traces to a verified identity.
Review and release Weak

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 2.3/10 (scanned Oct 25, 2026, refresh pending). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 0

CI-Tests -1

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 3

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 0

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 0

Packaging -1

Pinned-Dependencies 0

SAST 0

Security-Policy 0

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 0
Published packages Linked, not attested
- PyPI agent-mcp-gateway 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: agent-mcp-gateway 0.2.5. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-09).

Changes to this chain

2026-08-30 OSSF Scorecard: 2.3/10

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 Agent MCP Gateway’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 Agent MCP Gateway compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Agent MCP Gateway’s 35.9.

Where the 35.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

35.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Agent MCP Gateway MCP Servers average (778 agents)

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

2.9 / 25

7.9 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

10.5 / 17

1.8 below avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

0 / 20

12.2 below avg 12.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

6.7 / 20

0.9 below avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

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

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 2.3/10. 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 343 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

13.3

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#737

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

2025-12-02

343 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

116

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▲1

was #1278

Analysis

Activity Inputs

13.3 / 100

StarsRepository reach

9.7 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

0.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

3.6 / 20

Common questions about Agent MCP Gateway

Public trust evidence for Agent MCP Gateway 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 Agent MCP Gateway publish package provenance?

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

Does Agent MCP Gateway have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Agent MCP Gateway has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 2.3/10. 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 Agent MCP Gateway actively maintained?

Stale. The repository has not been pushed to in 343 days. Consider whether the project is still being maintained.

What license does Agent MCP Gateway use?

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

Are Agent MCP Gateway's commits signed?

0% of the last 100 commits to Agent MCP Gateway 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

Agent MCP Gateway appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Postgres

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 Agent MCP Gateway'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 dependency: Postgres

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain Agent MCP Gateway?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Agent MCP Gateway 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

2026-10-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#1259 → #1271)

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Postgres

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 63 spots (#1297 → #1234)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 22.3pts (13.1 → 35.4)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1297

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-10

Rank Moved

Rank rose 10 spots (#1237 → #1227)

2026-09-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#1218 → #1229)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#1205 → #1218)

2026-09-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#1187 → #1205)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 29 spots (#1158 → #1187)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 30 spots (#1128 → #1158)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 48 spots (#1080 → #1128)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 45 spots (#1035 → #1080)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 39 spots (#996 → #1035)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 31 spots (#965 → #996)

2026-08-30

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 2.3/10

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank rose 172 spots (#1137 → #965)

2026-08-30

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 13.3pts (21.9 → 35.2)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 32 spots (#1105 → #1137)

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#1078 → #1105)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#1060 → #1078)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 74 spots (#986 → #1060)

2026-08-24

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#972 → #983)

2026-08-22

Rank Moved

Rank rose 12 spots (#989 → #977)

2026-08-17

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#993 → #982)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#965 → #993)

GitHub → PyPI: agent-mcp-gateway

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in MCP Servers

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

Agent MCP Gateway

How Agent MCP Gateway could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Unsigned

Review and release Weak

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 Agent MCP Gateway compares in MCP Servers

Where the 35.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Agent MCP Gateway

AI agent surface

Maintain Agent MCP Gateway?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers