Is MCP-Bridge safe to use?

MCP-Bridge has an HVTrust score of 16.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #1236 of 1308 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for MCP-Bridge?

MCP-Bridge scores 16.2/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 930 GitHub stars and is categorized under Protocols & Tool Integration.

MCP-Bridge

SecretiveShell/MCP-Bridge

A middleware to provide an openAI compatible endpoint that can call MCP tools

Protocols & Tool Integration Python Grade D Listed MIT

16.2/100

Rank #1236 of 1308

Compare MCP-Bridge

How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

Open compare tool Suggest correction

Listing state

Listed

Evidence coverage

Grade D · 1/5 signals

Last push

2025-12-08 · 254d ago

Recent change

Rank

Is MCP-Bridge safe? MCP-Bridge scores 16.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #1236 of 1308 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage D (1 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 40% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2025-12-08. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Protocols & Tool Integration

#54 TUUI — 17.8 (D) → #55 FastAPI-MCP — 17.7 (D) → #57 MCP Hub for Neovim — 15.1 (D) → #58 Scira MCP Chat — 13.1 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.

Recent Changes

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#1212 → #1237)

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 72 spots (#1140 → #1212)

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 630 spots (#507 → #1137)

Maintainer Checklist

Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.

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

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for MCP-Bridge View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data

27.5

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#56

In Protocols & Tool Integration

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 D is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (1 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-19

Activity & Reach

Stars

930

Forks

118

Last Push

2025-12-08

254 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

—

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼1

was #1235

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Protocols & Tool Integration

16.2 / 100 · 50.0% confidence

MCP-Bridge Protocols & Tool Integration average (58 agents)

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

2.0 / 25

6.5 below avg 8.5

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.9 below avg 11.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

8.5 / 17

2.9 below avg 11.4

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

0 / 20

13.9 below avg 13.9

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

7.1 / 20

3.2 below avg 10.3

Activity Inputs

27.5 / 100

StarsRepository reach

17.8 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

0.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

9.7 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

40%

of last 100 commits verified

Is MCP-Bridge safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP-Bridge 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 MCP-Bridge publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP-Bridge. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does MCP-Bridge have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for MCP-Bridge. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.

Is MCP-Bridge actively maintained?

Stale. The repository has not been pushed to in 254 days. Consider whether the project is still being maintained.

What license does MCP-Bridge use?

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

Are MCP-Bridge's commits signed?

40% of the last 100 commits to MCP-Bridge 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

MCP-Bridge appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

medium confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Postgres

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

Maintain MCP-Bridge?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP-Bridge 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

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#1212 → #1237)

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 72 spots (#1140 → #1212)

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 630 spots (#507 → #1137)

2026-08-06

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #518

GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON