updated 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC

MCP Fns Check

atomno-mcp/mcp-fns-check

MCP server for checking RU counterparties via FNS open data (EGRUL/EGRIP, EFRSB, KAD, FSSP)

MCP Servers Python Grade D Listed MIT
31.7/100
Rank #745 of 1283
Compare MCP Fns Check

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
2026-07-14 · 29d ago
Recent change
Rank +1

Is MCP Fns Check safe? MCP Fns Check scores 31.7/100 (Grade D), ranked #745 of 1283 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; recent commits are unsigned; last pushed 2026-07-14. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#340 Fr24api MCP — 31.7 (D) → #341 MCPSpend — 31.7 (D) → #343 Cr7258 Elasticsearch MCP Server — 31.5 (D) → #344 Apollo.io — 31.5 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 37 spots (#710 → #747)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #994
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.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for MCP Fns Check View MCP Servers Report missing data
40.2
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#342
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 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC · Repo last pushed 29 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars
15
Forks
2
Last Push
2026-07-14
29 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
5
Downloads (7d)
229
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
1
Rank Change
▲1
was #746

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

31.7 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

MCP Fns Check MCP Servers average (761 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
0 / 25
5.0 below avg 5.0
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.5 below avg 13.3
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
8.5 / 17
in line with avg 8.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
13.2 / 20
0.8 above avg 12.4
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
6.0 / 20
in line with avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

40.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
7.2 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
21.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
9.7 / 25
CommunityFork signal
2.2 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
0%
of last 100 commits verified

Is MCP Fns Check safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP Fns Check 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 Fns Check publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Fns Check. 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 Fns Check have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for MCP Fns Check. 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 Fns Check actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 29 days ago.
What license does MCP Fns Check use?
MCP Fns Check ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP Fns Check's commits signed?
0% of the last 100 commits to MCP Fns Check 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 Fns Check appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
None detected
No clear third-party provider dependency detected.
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
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

Maintain MCP Fns Check?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Fns Check 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
Listed 1Rank 1
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 37 spots (#710 → #747)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #994
GitHub → PyPI: atomno-mcp-fns-check

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 31.7 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-fns-check.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-fns-check)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-fns-check"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-fns-check.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

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