updated 2026-09-04 14:03 UTC

MCP Explorium

explorium-ai/mcp-explorium

Explorium B2B Data - MCP Server

MCP Servers Dockerfile Grade D Listed MIT
33.5/100
Rank #1165 of 1320
Compare MCP Explorium

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers 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 C · 2/5 signals
Last push
2026-03-03 · 185d ago
Recent change
Scorecard +2

Is MCP Explorium safe? MCP Explorium scores 33.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #1165 of 1320 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 4.0/10; 32% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-03-03. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#676 Zenmoney MCP — 33.8 (D) → #677 Chrome MCP Server — 33.7 (D) → #679 Hummingbot MCP — 33.4 (D) → #680 MeiGen AI Design MCP — 33.3 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-09-03
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.0/10
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank rose 160 spots (#1319 → #1159)
2026-09-03
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 20.5pts (13.0 → 33.5)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 4.0/10. 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.
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 185 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for MCP Explorium View MCP Servers Report missing data
11.4
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#678
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 D 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-09-04 14:03 UTC · Repo last pushed 185 days ago — may be stale

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-09-04

Activity & Reach

Stars
21
Forks
4
Last Push
2026-03-03
185 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
1
Rank Change
▼6
was #1159

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

33.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Explorium MCP Servers average (778 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
6.6 / 25
2.9 below avg 9.5
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.6 below avg 13.4
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
11.9 / 17
in line with avg 11.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
0 / 20
12.2 below avg 12.2
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
3.2 / 20
3.0 below avg 6.2

Activity Inputs

11.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
8.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
0.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
3.3 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
4.0 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Sep 3, 2026
Signed Commits
32%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 5
CI-Tests 4
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 3
Contributors 0
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 0
Fuzzing 0
License 10
Maintained 0
Packaging -1
Pinned-Dependencies 2
SAST 4
Security-Policy 0
Signed-Releases -1
Token-Permissions 9
Vulnerabilities 0

Is MCP Explorium safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP Explorium 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 Explorium publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Explorium. 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 Explorium have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
MCP Explorium has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.0/10. 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 Explorium actively maintained?
Stale. The repository has not been pushed to in 185 days. Consider whether the project is still being maintained.
What license does MCP Explorium use?
MCP Explorium ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP Explorium's commits signed?
31% of the last 100 commits to MCP Explorium 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 Explorium 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
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 Explorium?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Explorium 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
Rank 4Listed 1HVTrust 1Scorecard 1
2026-09-03
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.0/10
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank rose 160 spots (#1319 → #1159)
2026-09-03
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 20.5pts (13.0 → 33.5)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#1291 → #1302)
2026-08-16
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 25 spots (#1265 → #1290)
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 79 spots (#1183 → #1262)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1182
GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 33.5 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-explorium.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-explorium)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-explorium"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-explorium.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

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