E18e MCP
The official e18e MCP server
Is E18e MCP safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare E18e MCP
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: E18e MCP scores 64.9/100 (Grade C), ranked #539 of 1374 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 3.6/10; 45% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (@e18e/mcp); last pushed 2026-10-01. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How E18e 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 3.6 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Dependency-Update-Tool 0 +11.3 → 76.2 B · #144 of 778
- Sign every commit45% signed today +2.8 → 67.7 B · #253 of 778
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships E18e MCP 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/e18e/mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-01. 45% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 3.6/10 (scanned Nov 9, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review6
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies8
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests 8CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 6Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 1Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 8SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages Linked and attested
- npm @e18e/mcp Source link points back to this repo Build provenance attested
-
What you install today No known advisories
Latest release checked: @e18e/mcp 0.0.11. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-10).
Changes to this chain
- 2026-09-23 Package provenance attestation detected
- 2026-08-29 OSSF Scorecard: 4.5/10
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 E18e 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 E18e MCP compares in MCP Servers
- #305 Ghidra MCP 65.0 +0.1
- #306 ZulipChat MCP Server 64.9 ±0
- #307 E18e MCP 64.9 this agent
- #308 Korea Stock MCP 64.9 ±0
- #309 Web Researcher MCP 64.7 −0.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks E18e MCP’s 64.9.
Where the 64.9 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
64.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceE18e MCP 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 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
29.6 / 100Common questions about E18e MCP
Does E18e MCP publish package provenance?
Does E18e MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is E18e MCP actively maintained?
What license does E18e MCP use?
Are E18e 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 E18e 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 E18e MCP?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores E18e 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/e18e-mcp)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/e18e-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/e18e-mcp.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