Is MCP Cn Commerce safe to use?

MCP Cn Commerce has an HVTrust score of 62.2/100 (Grade C), ranked #639 of 1374 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for MCP Cn Commerce?

MCP Cn Commerce scores 62.2/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 97 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

MCP Cn Commerce

Repository

中国电商 MCP 连接器：8 个平台、155 个已注册工具。开源标准版，含能力矩阵与实际工程验收记录；真实商家联调状态逐项公开。Chinese commerce MCP connectors with documented capabilities and validation status.

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

Is MCP Cn Commerce safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

OSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 53%

Last push yesterday

Advisories None known

Compare MCP Cn Commerce

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: MCP Cn Commerce scores 62.2/100 (Grade C), ranked #639 of 1374 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.2/10; 53% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (mcp-cn-commerce); last pushed 2026-11-09. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How MCP Cn Commerce 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.

Publish build provenance for its packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +14.7 → 76.9 B · #138 of 778
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 5.2 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Contributors 0 +7.9 → 70.1 B · #223 of 778
Sign every commit53% signed today +2.3 → 64.5 C · #314 of 778

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP Cn Commerce 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/TonyWang-hub/mcp-cn-commerce, MIT, last pushed 2026-11-09. 53% 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 5.2/10 (scanned Nov 7, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 3

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 0

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging -1

Pinned-Dependencies 0

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 10
Published packages Linked, not attested
- PyPI mcp-cn-commerce Source link points back to this repo No build attestation
Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: mcp-cn-commerce 0.1.6. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-09).

Changes to this chain

2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 4.5/10

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 Cn Commerce’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 MCP Cn Commerce compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Cn Commerce’s 62.2.

Where the 62.2 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

62.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Cn Commerce MCP Servers average (778 agents)

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

9.2 / 25

1.6 below avg 10.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

2.9 below avg 13.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

12.9 / 17

0.6 above avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

17.1 / 20

4.9 above avg 12.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

7.2 / 20

in line with avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-11-09

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#647 → #636)

2026-11-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#619 → #647)

2026-11-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#589 → #607)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 5.2/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

59.0

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#351

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 C 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 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-11-09

yesterday

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼3

was #636

Analysis

Activity Inputs

59.0 / 100

StarsRepository reach

11.9 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.9 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

16.2 / 25

CommunityFork signal

5.9 / 20

Common questions about MCP Cn Commerce

MCP Cn Commerce has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.

Does MCP Cn Commerce publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Cn Commerce. 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 Cn Commerce have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

MCP Cn Commerce has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.2/10. 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 MCP Cn Commerce actively maintained?

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

What license does MCP Cn Commerce use?

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

Are MCP Cn Commerce's commits signed?

53% of the last 100 commits to MCP Cn Commerce 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

medium confidence

Implemented

MCP Cn Commerce appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

low confidence

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

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

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 MCP Cn Commerce'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.

2026-09-24

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain MCP Cn Commerce?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Cn Commerce 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

2026-11-09

Rank Moved

Rank rose 11 spots (#647 → #636)

2026-11-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#619 → #647)

2026-11-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 18 spots (#589 → #607)

2026-11-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 14 spots (#603 → #589)

2026-11-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 28 spots (#631 → #603)

2026-10-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#610 → #622)

2026-10-26

Rank Moved

Rank rose 28 spots (#630 → #602)

2026-10-19

Rank Moved

Rank rose 18 spots (#631 → #613)

2026-10-18

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 15 spots (#616 → #631)

2026-10-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 17 spots (#597 → #614)

2026-10-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#578 → #597)

2026-10-09

Rank Moved

Rank rose 14 spots (#592 → #578)

2026-10-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#578 → #590)

2026-10-05

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#593 → #580)

2026-09-28

Rank Moved

Rank rose 12 spots (#584 → #572)

2026-09-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#571 → #582)

2026-09-24

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-24

Rank Moved

Rank rose 53 spots (#623 → #570)

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 134 spots (#757 → #623)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 30.3pts (29.8 → 60.1)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #757

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-12

Rank Moved

Rank rose 47 spots (#600 → #553)

2026-09-11

Rank Moved

Rank rose 65 spots (#665 → #600)

2026-09-11

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 7pts (54 → 61)

2026-09-10

Rank Moved

Rank rose 81 spots (#746 → #665)

2026-09-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#736 → #746)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#714 → #727)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 73 spots (#632 → #705)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 23 spots (#609 → #632)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 35 spots (#574 → #609)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 22 spots (#552 → #574)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#538 → #552)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 22 spots (#506 → #528)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#487 → #500)

2026-08-26

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 4.5/10

2026-08-26

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank rose 281 spots (#768 → #487)

2026-08-26

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 23.1pts (31.1 → 54.2)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 16 spots (#759 → #775)

GitHub → PyPI: mcp-cn-commerce

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
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 v4.4 · Raw JSON

MCP Cn Commerce

How MCP Cn Commerce could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages Linked, not 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 MCP Cn Commerce compares in MCP Servers

Where the 62.2 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about MCP Cn Commerce

AI agent surface

Maintain MCP Cn Commerce?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers