Is Firecrawl MCP Server safe?
Firecrawl MCP Server scores 31.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #325 of 348 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 3.9/10;
recent commits are unsigned;
last pushed 2026-07-12. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
31.5/100 · Grade D
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
19.0/20
Weakest Signal
Transparency
3.3/17
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-07-13
Activity Resumed
Activity resumed
2026-07-13
Rank Moved
Rank rose 19 spots (#344 → #325)
2026-07-13
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 24.2pts (7.3 → 31.5)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 3.9/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
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 C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-13 01:30 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-07-122026-07-13
Activity & Reach
Stars
6.9k
Forks
804
Last Push
2026-07-12
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
57
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
72
Rank Change
▲19
was #344
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
31.5 / 100 · 67.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
4.9 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
3.3 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
19.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
9.2 / 20
Activity Inputs
83.5 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.0 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
22.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.5 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
3.9 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 12, 2026
Signed Commits
—
Unable to query
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection0
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review1
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool0
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST0
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Firecrawl MCP Server safe?
Public trust evidence for Firecrawl MCP Server 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 Firecrawl MCP Server publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Firecrawl MCP Server. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Firecrawl MCP Server have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Firecrawl MCP Server has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 3.9/10. 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 Firecrawl MCP Server actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Firecrawl MCP Server use?
Firecrawl MCP Server ships under no SPDX license detected. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
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.
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
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
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
None detected
No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
N/A
No package source configured
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 Firecrawl MCP Server'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.
2026-07-13
Activity Resumed
Activity resumed
Maintain Firecrawl MCP Server?
HVTrust scores Firecrawl MCP Server 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.
