Context+
Semantic Intelligence for Large-Scale Engineering. Context+ is an MCP server designed for developers who demand 99% accuracy. By combining RAG, Tree-sitter AST, Spectral Clustering, and Obsidian-style linking, Context+ turns a massive codebase into a searchable, hierarchical feature graph.
Is Context+ safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare Context+
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Context+ scores 40.7/100 (Grade D), ranked #1149 of 1325 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 2.4/10; 26% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-07-13. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Context+ compares in MCP Servers
- #678 Gopls MCP 40.8 +0.1
- #679 Weapp Agent MCP 40.8 +0.1
- #680 Context+ 40.7 this agent
- #681 Tijori Finance MCP 40.7 ±0
- #682 Workopia MCP 40.6 −0.1
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Context+’s 40.7.
Where the 40.7 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
40.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceContext+ MCP Servers average (775 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
44.9 / 100Supply Chain Trust
Common questions about Context+
Does Context+ publish package provenance?
Does Context+ have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Context+ actively maintained?
What license does Context+ use?
Are Context+'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 →
- code
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Context+'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 Context+?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Context+ 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/context)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/context"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/context.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 v4.3 · Raw JSON