Is Docling MCP safe to use?

Docling MCP has an HVTrust score of 64.8/100 (Grade C), ranked #481 of 1325 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Docling MCP?

Docling MCP scores 64.8/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 758 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Docling MCP

docling-project/docling-mcp

Making docling agentic through MCP

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

Is Docling MCP safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

OSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 77%

Last push 2d ago

Compare Docling MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Docling MCP scores 64.8/100 (Grade C), ranked #481 of 1325 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 5.3/10; 77% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-24. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Docling MCP compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Docling MCP’s 64.8.

Where the 64.8 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

64.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Docling MCP MCP Servers average (775 agents)

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

10.5 / 25

in line with avg 10.3

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

2.6 below avg 13.4

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

13.0 / 17

0.8 above avg 12.2

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

13.6 / 20

1.5 above avg 12.1

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

11.9 / 20

4.7 above avg 7.2

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

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

Recent Changes

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 5.3/10. 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.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Docling MCP View MCP Servers Report missing data

62.7

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#277

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 C 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

2026-08-11 2026-09-26

Activity & Reach

Stars

758

Forks

142

Last Push

2026-09-24

2 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

5,193

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼1

was #480

Analysis

Activity Inputs

62.7 / 100

StarsRepository reach

17.3 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.7 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

10.5 / 25

CommunityFork signal

10.0 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

5.3 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Sep 19, 2026

Signed Commits

77%

of last 100 commits verified

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 4

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 7

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 0

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 0

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 6

Common questions about Docling MCP

Docling MCP has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.

Does Docling MCP publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Docling 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 Docling MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Docling MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.3/10. 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 Docling MCP actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 2 day(s).

What license does Docling MCP use?

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

Are Docling MCP's commits signed?

77% of the last 100 commits to Docling 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

Docling MCP 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.

Multi-provider (LiteLLM)

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 Docling 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 dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain Docling MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Docling 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

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 337 spots (#822 → #485)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 36.1pts (28.4 → 64.5)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #822

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-20

Grade Changed

Trust grade B → C

2026-09-17

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → B

2026-09-17

Rank Moved

Rank rose 38 spots (#486 → #448)

2026-09-12

Grade Changed

Trust grade B → C

2026-09-12

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 70 spots (#402 → #472)

2026-09-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#384 → #402)

2026-09-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#374 → #384)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#349 → #361)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 65 spots (#276 → #341)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 15 spots (#261 → #276)

2026-09-03

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 5.3/10

2026-09-03

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 736 spots (#997 → #261)

2026-09-03

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 28.1pts (39.1 → 67.2)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 51 spots (#946 → #997)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 29 spots (#917 → #946)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 30 spots (#887 → #917)

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 42 spots (#845 → #887)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 48 spots (#797 → #845)

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#770 → #797)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#743 → #770)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 100 spots (#643 → #743)

2026-08-18

Rank Moved

Rank rose 12 spots (#648 → #636)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#635 → #645)

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#616 → #641)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #615

GitHub → PyPI: docling-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/docling-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/docling-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/docling-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/docling-mcp.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 v4.3 · Raw JSON