Airtable
🗂️🤖 Airtable Model Context Protocol Server, for allowing AI systems to interact with your Airtable bases
Is Airtable safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare Airtable
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Airtable scores 68.8/100 (Grade B), ranked #398 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 5.2/10; 74% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (airtable-mcp-server); last pushed 2026-11-08. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Airtable 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 → 83.5 A · #52 of 778
- Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 5.2 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Fuzzing 0, SAST 0 +7.9 → 76.7 B · #140 of 778
- Sign every commit74% signed today +1.3 → 70.1 B · #223 of 778
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Airtable 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/domdomegg/airtable-mcp-server, MIT, last pushed 2026-11-08. 74% 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 5.2/10 (scanned Nov 10, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review1
- Branch Protection1
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies3
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 1CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 1Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 3SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 9 -
Published packages Linked, not attested
- npm airtable-mcp-server 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: airtable-mcp-server 1.14.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-10).
Changes to this chain
- 2026-09-01 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 Airtable’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.
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 Airtable compares in MCP Servers
- #233 Apple Mail MCP 68.9 +0.1
- #234 Grafana MCP Server 68.8 ±0
- #235 Airtable 68.8 this agent
- #236 SportIQ MCP 68.8 ±0
- #237 Opentargets MCP 68.7 −0.1
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Airtable’s 68.8.
Where the 68.8 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
68.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceAirtable MCP Servers average (778 agents)
Quick Trust Read
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
65.5 / 100Common questions about Airtable
Does Airtable publish package provenance?
Does Airtable have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Airtable actively maintained?
What license does Airtable use?
Are Airtable's commits signed?
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
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 signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Airtable'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.
Maintain Airtable?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Airtable 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/airtable)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/airtable"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/airtable.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in MCP Servers
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