N8n MCP
Website
Debugging-first MCP server for n8n. Tools for workflow generation, linting, per-node execution diagnosis, and driving live n8n instances. Built for AI agents.
Is N8n MCP safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare N8n MCP
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: N8n MCP scores 31.6/100 (Grade D), ranked #1324 of 1378 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 2.9/10; recent commits are unsigned; last pushed 2026-06-08. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How N8n 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.
- Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 2.9 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +12.7 → 44.3 D · #655 of 781
- Sign every commit0% signed today +5.0 → 36.6 D · #733 of 781
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships N8n MCP and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Unsigned
github.com/AutomateLab-tech/n8n-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-06-08. 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 2.9/10 (scanned Oct 13, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies1
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests -1CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 3Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 1SAST 0Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. N8n MCP is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 3.2/10
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads (missing)
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues N8n 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.
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 N8n MCP compares in MCP Servers
- #763 Banco MCP 31.9 +0.3
- #764 Memory Bank MCP 31.8 +0.2
- #765 N8n MCP 31.6 this agent
- #766 A Mem MCP 31.5 −0.1
- #767 ByteAsk Embedded MCP 31.4 −0.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks N8n MCP’s 31.6.
Where the 31.6 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
31.6 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceN8n MCP MCP Servers average (781 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 D reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
13.9 / 100Common questions about N8n MCP
Does N8n MCP publish package provenance?
Does N8n MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is N8n MCP actively maintained?
What license does N8n MCP use?
Are N8n MCP'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 N8n 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.
Maintain N8n MCP?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores N8n 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/automatelab-tech-n8n-mcp)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/automatelab-tech-n8n-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/automatelab-tech-n8n-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in MCP Servers
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON