Is Filesystem MCP safe to use?

Filesystem MCP has an HVTrust score of 81.4/100 (Grade A), ranked #141 of 1378 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Filesystem MCP?

Filesystem MCP scores 81.4/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 24 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Filesystem MCP

Repository

Filesystem MCP server for AI assistants. Search, read, edit, and manage local files in directories you choose.

MCP Servers TypeScript Listed MIT

Is Filesystem MCP safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

OSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10

Provenance Attested

Signed commits 73%

Last push today

Advisories None known

Compare Filesystem MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Filesystem MCP scores 81.4/100 (Grade A), ranked #141 of 1378 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 5.0/10; 73% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (@j0hanz/filesystem-mcp); last pushed 2026-10-16. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Filesystem 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 5.0 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +7.1 → 88.5 A · #9 of 781
Sign every commit73% signed today +1.4 → 82.8 A · #47 of 781

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Filesystem 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/j0hanz/filesystem-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-16. 73% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
Review and release Mixed

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 5.0/10 (scanned Oct 10, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions10
- Pinned Dependencies4
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 0

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 0

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 0

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 4

SAST 0

Security-Policy 0

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 10

Vulnerabilities 10
Published packages Linked and attested
- npm @j0hanz/filesystem-mcp Source link points back to this repo Build provenance attested
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: @j0hanz/filesystem-mcp 2.8.1. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-16).

Changes to this chain

2026-09-23 Package provenance attestation detected
2026-08-31 OSSF Scorecard: 4.4/10

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 Filesystem 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 Filesystem MCP compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Filesystem MCP’s 81.4.

Where the 81.4 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

81.4 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Filesystem MCP MCP Servers average (781 agents)

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

17.4 / 25

6.9 above avg 10.5

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

18.0 / 18

4.5 above avg 13.5

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

12.8 / 17

0.5 above avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

20.0 / 20

7.7 above avg 12.3

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

7.5 / 20

in line with avg 7.4

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Improve adoption to lift the weakest part of the trust profile.

Recent Changes

2026-10-15

Rank Moved

Rank rose 22 spots (#162 → #140)

2026-10-13

Grade Changed

Trust grade B → A

2026-10-13

Rank Moved

Rank rose 10 spots (#167 → #157)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 5.0/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

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

62.3

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#62

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 A 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 2026-10-16

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-10-16

today

Commits (4 wk)

491

Downloads (7d)

1,391

npm

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼1

was #140

Analysis

Activity Inputs

62.3 / 100

StarsRepository reach

8.4 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

25.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

3.9 / 20

Common questions about Filesystem MCP

Public supply-chain signals for Filesystem MCP are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but Filesystem MCP carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.

Does Filesystem MCP publish package provenance?

Yes. Filesystem MCP's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.

Does Filesystem MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Filesystem MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.0/10. 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 Filesystem MCP actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).

What license does Filesystem MCP use?

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

Are Filesystem MCP's commits signed?

73% of the last 100 commits to Filesystem 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

Filesystem MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.

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 Filesystem 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.

2026-09-27

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Provenance Added

Package provenance attestation detected

2026-09-06

Provider Removed

Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Redis

2026-09-02

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Redis

Maintain Filesystem MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Filesystem 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

2026-10-15

Rank Moved

Rank rose 22 spots (#162 → #140)

2026-10-13

Grade Changed

Trust grade B → A

2026-10-13

Rank Moved

Rank rose 10 spots (#167 → #157)

2026-10-12

Rank Moved

Rank rose 16 spots (#183 → #167)

2026-10-11

Rank Moved

Rank rose 14 spots (#197 → #183)

2026-10-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 19 spots (#204 → #185)

2026-09-28

Rank Moved

Rank rose 24 spots (#224 → #200)

2026-09-27

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 20 spots (#204 → #224)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Provenance Added

Package provenance attestation detected

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 602 spots (#800 → #198)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 47.3pts (28.8 → 76.1)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #800

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#197 → #207)

2026-09-06

Provider Removed

Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Redis

2026-09-05

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank rose 617 spots (#820 → #203)

2026-09-05

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 26.2pts (48.7 → 74.9)

2026-09-04

Grade Changed

Trust grade B → D

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 666 spots (#154 → #820)

2026-09-04

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust down 25.7pts (74.4 → 48.7)

2026-09-02

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Redis

2026-09-02

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 558 spots (#704 → #146)

2026-09-02

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 25.6pts (48.9 → 74.5)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#677 → #704)

2026-08-31

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 4.4/10

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank rose 123 spots (#800 → #677)

2026-08-31

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 6.1pts (42.8 → 48.9)

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#772 → #800)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 46 spots (#726 → #772)

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#701 → #726)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank rose 78 spots (#779 → #701)

2026-08-27

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 5.3pts (37.6 → 42.9)

2026-08-27

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 25pts (34 → 59)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 101 spots (#678 → #779)

2026-08-18

Rank Moved

Rank rose 26 spots (#699 → #673)

2026-08-18

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 6pts (28 → 34)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#690 → #701)

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 29 spots (#659 → #688)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #658

GitHub → npm: @j0hanz/filesystem-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/filesystem-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/filesystem-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/filesystem-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/filesystem-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

Filesystem MCP

How Filesystem MCP could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages Linked and 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 Filesystem MCP compares in MCP Servers

Where the 81.4 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Filesystem MCP

AI agent surface

Maintain Filesystem MCP?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers