Linux MCP Server
Tools to allow LLM clients to interact with Linux systems remotely
Is Linux MCP Server safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
Compare Linux MCP Server
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Linux MCP Server scores 79.8/100 (Grade B), ranked #150 of 1325 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 5.2/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Linux MCP Server compares in MCP Servers
- #76 Mdk MCP Server 79.8 ±0
- #77 Api MCP Server 79.8 ±0
- #78 Linux MCP Server 79.8 this agent
- #79 Notion MCP Server 79.6 −0.2
- #80 AirMCP 79.5 −0.3
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Linux MCP Server’s 79.8.
Where the 79.8 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
79.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceLinux MCP Server MCP Servers average (775 agents)
Quick Trust Read
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
68.4 / 100Supply Chain Trust
Common questions about Linux MCP Server
Does Linux MCP Server publish package provenance?
Does Linux MCP Server have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Linux MCP Server actively maintained?
What license does Linux MCP Server use?
Are Linux MCP Server's commits signed?
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
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 →
- database
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Linux 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.
Maintain Linux MCP Server?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Linux 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/linux-mcp-server)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/linux-mcp-server"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/linux-mcp-server.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in MCP Servers
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 v4.3 · Raw JSON