MCP Context Forge
An AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.
Is MCP Context Forge safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare MCP Context Forge
How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: MCP Context Forge scores 68.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #386 of 1371 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 7.6/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-13. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How MCP Context Forge 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 7.6 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Dependency-Update-Tool 0, Signed-Releases 0 +2.8 → 71.5 B · #14 of 62
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP Context Forge and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Signed
github.com/IBM/mcp-context-forge, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-10-13. 100% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so changes trace to a verified account.
-
Review and release Strong
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 7.6/10 (scanned Oct 10, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review10
- Branch Protection8
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions9
- Pinned Dependencies7
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 8CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 10Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 10License 10Maintained 10Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 7SAST 6Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 9Vulnerabilities 7 -
Published packages None
No registry package. MCP Context Forge is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-10-04 OSSF Scorecard: 6.7/10
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads (missing)
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues MCP Context Forge’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 Context Forge compares in Protocols & Tool Integration
- #16 Context7 69.2 +0.5
- #17 Treg 69.2 +0.5
- #18 MCP Context Forge 68.7 this agent
- #19 Microsoft MCP Catalog 68.6 −0.1
- #20 GitHub MCP Server 68.2 −0.5
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Context Forge’s 68.7.
Where the 68.7 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average
68.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceMCP Context Forge 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 B 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 →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
85.8 / 100Common questions about MCP Context Forge
Does MCP Context Forge publish package provenance?
Does MCP Context Forge have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is MCP Context Forge actively maintained?
What license does MCP Context Forge use?
Are MCP Context Forge'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 →
- code
- database
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Maintain MCP Context Forge?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores MCP Context Forge 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-context-forge)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-context-forge"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-context-forge.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON