Is MCP Neo4j safe to use?

MCP Neo4j has an HVTrust score of 27.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #796 of 1283 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for MCP Neo4j?

MCP Neo4j scores 27.1/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 979 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

MCP Neo4j

neo4j-contrib/mcp-neo4j

Neo4j Labs Model Context Protocol servers

MCP Servers Python Grade D Listed MIT

27.1/100

Rank #796 of 1283

Compare MCP Neo4j

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

2026-04-10 · 124d ago

Recent change

Rank +1

Is MCP Neo4j safe? MCP Neo4j scores 27.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #796 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; 98% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-04-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#381 AkTools MCP Server — 27.3 (D) → #382 Multi-MCP — 27.2 (D) → #384 Azure DevOps (ADO) — 27.1 (D) → #385 Kylas CRM — 27.0 (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 44 spots (#752 → #796)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #748

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.

Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 124 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for MCP Neo4j View MCP Servers Report missing data

37.0

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#383

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 →

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars

979

Forks

256

Last Push

2026-04-10

124 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #796

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

27.1 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

MCP Neo4j MCP Servers average (761 agents)

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

4.9 / 25

in line with 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

3.7 / 20

8.7 below avg 12.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

9.7 / 20

3.9 above avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

37.0 / 100

StarsRepository reach

17.9 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

7.8 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

11.2 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

98%

of last 100 commits verified

Is MCP Neo4j safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP Neo4j 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 Neo4j publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Neo4j. 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 Neo4j have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for MCP Neo4j. 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 Neo4j actively maintained?

Slowing down. Last push was 124 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.

What license does MCP Neo4j use?

MCP Neo4j ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are MCP Neo4j's commits signed?

98% of the last 100 commits to MCP Neo4j 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 Neo4j appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

medium confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Google Gemini

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

low confidence

Unknown

Package source metadata is missing or inconclusive

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 Neo4j?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Neo4j 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

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 44 spots (#752 → #796)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #748

GitHub → PyPI: mcp-neo4j-aura-manager

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-neo4j.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-neo4j)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-neo4j"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-neo4j.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