updated 2026-09-04 23:32 UTC

MCP Hangar

mcp-hangar/mcp-hangar

MCP policy enforcement plane — deterministic policy on every Model Context Protocol call: identity, RFC 8707 audience bi

MCP Servers Python Grade A Listed MIT
87.5/100
Rank #31 of 1320
Compare MCP Hangar

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade B · 3/5 signals
Last push
2026-09-04 · 0d ago
Recent change
Provider Added +4

Is MCP Hangar safe? MCP Hangar scores 87.5/100 (Grade A), ranked #31 of 1320 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 8.3/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-04. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#3 Supabase MCP Server — 88.9 (A) → #4 Apify MCP Server — 88.7 (A) → #6 Openzim MCP — 87.3 (A) → #7 Ha MCP — 87.3 (A) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Improve adoption to lift the weakest part of the trust profile.
Recent Changes
2026-09-03
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Redis
2026-08-30
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 8.3/10
2026-08-30
Grade Changed
Trust grade B → A
Maintainer Checklist
Keep signals current Trust posture is already in a healthy range. The main job is to keep provenance, maintenance, and public evidence fresh.
Compare with Codebase Memory MCP Get email alerts for MCP Hangar View MCP Servers Report missing data
61.3
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#5
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 A 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-09-04 23:32 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Rank Trend

2026-08-16 2026-09-04

Activity & Reach

Stars
14
Forks
7
Last Push
2026-09-04
today
Commits (4 wk)
240
Downloads (7d)
948
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
6
Rank Change
▼2
was #29

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

87.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Hangar MCP Servers average (778 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
22.9 / 25
13.3 above avg 9.6
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
18.0 / 18
4.6 above avg 13.4
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
15.6 / 17
3.8 above avg 11.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
20.0 / 20
7.8 above avg 12.2
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
6.8 / 20
0.5 above avg 6.3

Activity Inputs

61.3 / 100
StarsRepository reach
7.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
4.2 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
Verified
pypi attestation
OSSF Scorecard
8.3 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Sep 2, 2026
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 4
CI-Tests 10
CII-Best-Practices 5
Code-Review 0
Contributors 3
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 10
License 10
Maintained 10
Packaging 10
Pinned-Dependencies 5
SAST 10
Security-Policy 10
Signed-Releases 10
Token-Permissions 10
Vulnerabilities 10

Is MCP Hangar safe?

Public supply-chain signals for MCP Hangar are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but MCP Hangar carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does MCP Hangar publish package provenance?
Yes. MCP Hangar's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does MCP Hangar have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
MCP Hangar has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 8.3/10. 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 Hangar actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does MCP Hangar use?
MCP Hangar ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP Hangar's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to MCP Hangar 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.

Compare MCP Hangar head-to-head

MCP Hangar vs Codebase Memory MCP → MCP Hangar vs SearXNG Search → MCP Hangar vs Supabase MCP Server →

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 Hangar appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
2 detected
Public provider/service dependencies detected.
Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
medium confidence
1 tags
Broad capability areas detected.
  • database
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 Hangar'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.

2026-09-03
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Redis

Maintain MCP Hangar?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Hangar 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 2Listed 1HVTrust 1Grade 1Scorecard 1Surface 1
2026-09-03
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Redis
2026-08-30
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 8.3/10
2026-08-30
Grade Changed
Trust grade B → A
2026-08-30
Rank Moved
Rank rose 133 spots (#156 → #23)
2026-08-30
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 16.5pts (71.8 → 88.3)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 14 spots (#128 → #142)
2026-08-16
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #126
GitHub → PyPI: mcp-hangar

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 87.5 Grade A
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-hangar.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-hangar)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-hangar"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-hangar.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 v4.3 · Raw JSON