MCP Apps
Official repo for spec & SDK of MCP Apps protocol - standard for UIs embedded AI chatbots, served by MCP servers
Is MCP Apps safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
Compare MCP Apps
How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: MCP Apps scores 86.7/100 (Grade A), ranked #68 of 1371 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 5.8/10; 68% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (@modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps); last pushed 2026-09-25. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How MCP Apps 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 5.8 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Fuzzing 0 +4.7 → 91.4 A · #4 of 62
- Sign every commit68% signed today +1.2 → 87.9 A · #5 of 62
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP Apps 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/modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps, NOASSERTION, last pushed 2026-09-25. 68% 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 5.8/10 (scanned Oct 12, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection5
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies4
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 5CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 9Maintained 10Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 4SAST 10Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages Linked and attested
- npm @modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps Source link points back to this repo Build provenance attested
-
What you install today No known advisories
Latest release checked: @modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps 2.0.3. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-13).
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-07 OSSF Scorecard: 5.8/10
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 MCP Apps’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.
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 MCP Apps compares in Protocols & Tool Integration
- #4 A2A / Agent2Agent Protocol 89.4 +2.7
- #5 FastMCP (TypeScript) 86.8 +0.1
- #6 MCP Apps 86.7 this agent
- #7 mcp-proxy 85.5 −1.2
- #8 mcpc 83.5 −3.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Apps’s 86.7.
Where the 86.7 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average
86.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceMCP Apps Protocols & Tool Integration average (62 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 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
67.4 / 100Common questions about MCP Apps
Does MCP Apps publish package provenance?
Does MCP Apps have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is MCP Apps actively maintained?
What license does MCP Apps use?
Are MCP Apps'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.
Compare MCP Apps head-to-head
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 →
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Maintain MCP Apps?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores MCP Apps 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/mcp-apps)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-apps"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-apps.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration
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