Is Fattureincloud MCP safe to use?

Fattureincloud MCP has an HVTrust score of 44.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #1141 of 1374 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Fattureincloud MCP?

Fattureincloud MCP scores 44.1/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 26 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Fattureincloud MCP

Repository

MCP Server for Fatture in Cloud API - Gestione fatture elettroniche italiane con Claude AI

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

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

OSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 0%

Last push 70d ago

Advisories None known

Compare Fattureincloud MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Fattureincloud MCP scores 44.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #1141 of 1374 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 3.3/10; recent commits are unsigned; no published advisory affects its latest release (fattureincloud-mcp); last pushed 2026-09-01. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Fattureincloud 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.

Publish build provenance for its packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +14.7 → 58.8 C · #393 of 778
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 3.3 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Contributors 0 +11.9 → 56.0 C · #448 of 778
Sign every commit0% signed today +5.0 → 49.1 D · #585 of 778

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Fattureincloud 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 Unsigned

github.com/aringad/fattureincloud-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-09-01. None of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so no change traces to a verified identity.
Review and release Weak

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 3.3/10 (scanned Nov 10, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflown/a
- Token Permissionsn/a
- Pinned Dependenciesn/a
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 3

CI-Tests -1

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 0

Dangerous-Workflow -1

Dependency-Update-Tool 0

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 0

Packaging -1

Pinned-Dependencies -1

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions -1

Vulnerabilities 10
Published packages Linked, not attested
- PyPI fattureincloud-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.
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: fattureincloud-mcp 2.0.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-09).

Changes to this chain

2026-08-28 OSSF Scorecard: 3.3/10

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 Fattureincloud 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 Fattureincloud MCP compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Fattureincloud MCP’s 44.1.

Where the 44.1 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

44.1 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Fattureincloud MCP MCP Servers average (778 agents)

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

4.1 / 25

6.7 below avg 10.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

2.9 below avg 13.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

11.3 / 17

1.0 below avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

7.3 / 20

4.9 below avg 12.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

5.6 / 20

2.0 below avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

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

Recent Changes

2026-10-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#1073 → #1083)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 3.3/10. 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.

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 70 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

29.5

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#652

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 →

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-09-01

70 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #1141

Analysis

Activity Inputs

29.5 / 100

StarsRepository reach

8.6 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

15.3 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

5.5 / 20

Common questions about Fattureincloud MCP

Public trust evidence for Fattureincloud 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 Fattureincloud MCP publish package provenance?

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

Fattureincloud MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 3.3/10. 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 Fattureincloud MCP actively maintained?

Slowing down. Last push was 70 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.

What license does Fattureincloud MCP use?

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

Are Fattureincloud MCP's commits signed?

0% of the last 100 commits to Fattureincloud 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

medium confidence

Implemented

Fattureincloud MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

low confidence

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

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 Fattureincloud 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

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-01

Activity Resumed

Activity resumed

Maintain Fattureincloud MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Fattureincloud 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

2026-10-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#1073 → #1083)

2026-10-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#1062 → #1073)

2026-10-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 33 spots (#1000 → #1033)

2026-09-27

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#998 → #987)

2026-09-25

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#984 → #996)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 131 spots (#1116 → #985)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 26.4pts (21.8 → 48.2)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1116

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-20

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#966 → #976)

2026-09-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#923 → #933)

2026-09-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 16 spots (#901 → #917)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 36 spots (#865 → #901)

2026-09-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#851 → #865)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 61 spots (#790 → #851)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#762 → #790)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 43 spots (#719 → #762)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#705 → #719)

2026-09-01

Activity Resumed

Activity resumed

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank rose 165 spots (#870 → #705)

2026-09-01

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 8.0pts (40.8 → 48.8)

2026-09-01

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 19pts (22 → 41)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#842 → #870)

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 40 spots (#802 → #842)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 41 spots (#761 → #802)

2026-08-28

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 3.3/10

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank rose 219 spots (#980 → #761)

2026-08-28

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 16.4pts (24.5 → 40.9)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#955 → #980)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 108 spots (#847 → #955)

2026-08-24

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#835 → #845)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#820 → #839)

GitHub → PyPI: fattureincloud-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/fattureincloud-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/fattureincloud-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/fattureincloud-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/fattureincloud-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 v4.4 · Raw JSON

Fattureincloud MCP

How Fattureincloud MCP could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Unsigned

Review and release Weak

Published packages Linked, not attested

What you install today No known advisories

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How Fattureincloud MCP compares in MCP Servers

Where the 44.1 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Fattureincloud MCP

AI agent surface

Maintain Fattureincloud MCP?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers