updated 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC

Ejentum MCP

ejentum/ejentum-mcp

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

MCP Servers JavaScript Grade D Listed MIT
16.8/100
Rank #1195 of 1283
Compare Ejentum MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade D · 1/5 signals
Last push
2026-06-11 · 62d ago
Recent change
Rank +1

Is Ejentum MCP safe? Ejentum MCP scores 16.8/100 (Grade D), ranked #1195 of 1283 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage D (1 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 3% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-06-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#690 Awesome Agent Skills MCP — 16.8 (D) → #691 Three.js DevTools MCP — 16.8 (D) → #693 MCP Turso Cloud — 16.7 (D) → #694 MCP Mat — 16.7 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 75 spots (#1120 → #1195)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1115
Maintainer Checklist
Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.
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 62 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
26.4
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#692
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 D is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (1 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC · Repo last pushed 62 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars
14
Forks
3
Last Push
2026-06-11
62 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
1
Rank Change
=
was #1195

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

16.8 / 100 · 40.0% confidence

Ejentum MCP MCP Servers average (761 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
0.2 / 25
4.8 below avg 5.0
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.5 below avg 13.3
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
8.5 / 17
in line with avg 8.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
7.9 / 20
4.5 below avg 12.4
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
2.8 / 20
3.0 below avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

26.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
7.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
16.4 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
2.8 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
3%
of last 100 commits verified

Is Ejentum MCP safe?

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?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for Ejentum MCP. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.
Is Ejentum MCP actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 62 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

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
Listed 1Rank 1
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 16.8 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)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON