updated 2026-10-18 00:07 UTC

Ejentum MCP

Repository

MCP server for the Ejentum API. 8 cognitive operations across 4 harnesses (reasoning, code, anti-deception, memory) in dynamic and adaptive modes.

MCP Servers JavaScript Listed MIT

Is Ejentum MCP safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
Provenance None
Signed commits 3%
Last push 129d ago
Advisories None known
Compare Ejentum MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →
Suggest a correction

In detail: Ejentum MCP scores 40.8/100 (Grade D), ranked #1198 of 1378 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 3.7/10; 3% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (ejentum-mcp); last pushed 2026-06-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Ejentum 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.

Already done? Suggest a correctionAdd the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Ejentum 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.

  1. Source Partly signed

    github.com/ejentum/ejentum-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-06-11. 3% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.

  2. Review and release Weak

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 3.7/10 (scanned Oct 16, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review0
    • Branch Protection0
    • Signed Releasesn/a
    • Dangerous Workflow10
    • Token Permissions10
    • Pinned Dependencies3
    All 18 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 0
    CI-Tests -1
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 0
    Contributors 3
    Dangerous-Workflow 10
    Dependency-Update-Tool 0
    Fuzzing 0
    License 10
    Maintained 0
    Packaging 10
    Pinned-Dependencies 3
    SAST 0
    Security-Policy 0
    Signed-Releases -1
    Token-Permissions 10
    Vulnerabilities 0

  3. Published packages Linked, not attested

    • npm ejentum-mcp Source link points back to this repo No build attestation

    Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.

  4. What you install today No known advisories

    Latest release checked: ejentum-mcp 0.2.2. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-17).

Changes to this chain

  • 2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 4.2/10

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 Ejentum 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.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

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 Ejentum MCP compares in MCP Servers

  1. #687 Awesome Agent Skills MCP 40.9 +0.1
  2. #688 Open Notebook MCP 40.9 +0.1
  3. #689 Ejentum MCP 40.8 this agent
  4. #690 Vorim MCP Server 40.8 ±0
  5. #691 TalkToFigma MCP 40.8 ±0

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Ejentum MCP’s 40.8.

Where the 40.8 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

40.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Ejentum MCP MCP Servers average (781 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
4.8 / 25
5.8 below avg 10.6
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.8 below avg 13.6
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
11.6 / 17
0.7 below avg 12.3
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
3.4 / 20
8.8 below avg 12.2
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
5.5 / 20
1.9 below avg 7.4

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-10-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#1159 → #1172)
2026-09-23
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 3.7/10. 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.
Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 129 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Ejentum MCP View MCP Servers Report missing data
17.9
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#689
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 D 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-10-18 00:07 UTC · Repo last pushed 129 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-10-17

Activity & Reach

Stars
16
Forks
4
Last Push
2026-06-11
129 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
74
npm
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
2
Rank Change
▼3
was #1195

Analysis

Activity Inputs

17.9 / 100
StarsRepository reach
7.4 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
7.1 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
3.3 / 20

Common questions about Ejentum MCP

Public trust evidence for Ejentum MCP is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.
Does Ejentum MCP publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Ejentum 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 Ejentum MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Ejentum MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 3.7/10. 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 Ejentum MCP actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 129 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.
What license does Ejentum MCP use?
Ejentum MCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Ejentum MCP's commits signed?
3% of the last 100 commits to Ejentum 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
Ejentum 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.
Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration 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 Ejentum 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
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-09-09
Activity Went Stale
No commits for 90 days

Maintain Ejentum MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Ejentum 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
Rank 19HVTrust 3Listed 2Scorecard 1Stale 1Delisted 1MCP 1Surface 1Surface 1
2026-10-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#1159 → #1172)
2026-09-23
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank rose 98 spots (#1219 → #1121)
2026-09-23
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 24.4pts (17.7 → 42.1)
2026-09-22
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1219
2026-09-21
Removed From Active Tracking
Removed from active tracking
2026-09-12
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 18 spots (#1089 → #1107)
2026-09-09
Activity Went Stale
No commits for 90 days
2026-09-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 17 spots (#1068 → #1085)
2026-09-08
Rank Moved
Rank rose 208 spots (#1276 → #1068)
2026-09-08
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 14.5pts (28.9 → 43.4)
2026-09-06
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#1255 → #1267)
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 20 spots (#1235 → #1255)
2026-09-04
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 16 spots (#1219 → #1235)
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 51 spots (#1168 → #1219)
2026-09-02
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 41 spots (#1127 → #1168)
2026-09-01
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 42 spots (#1085 → #1127)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 28 spots (#1057 → #1085)
2026-08-30
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 54 spots (#1003 → #1057)
2026-08-29
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 51 spots (#952 → #1003)
2026-08-28
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 35 spots (#917 → #952)
2026-08-27
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#891 → #917)
2026-08-26
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.2/10
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank rose 335 spots (#1226 → #891)
2026-08-26
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 13.7pts (16.5 → 30.2)
2026-08-16
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#1195 → #1221)
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 75 spots (#1120 → #1195)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1115
GitHub → npm: ejentum-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 40.8 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/ejentum-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/ejentum-mcp)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/ejentum-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/ejentum-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
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