Is MCP Registry safe?
MCP Registry scores 66.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #111 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 7.4/10;
100% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
66.3/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Transparency
14.8/17
Weakest Signal
Adoption
9.2/20
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-07-09
Grade Changed
Trust grade C → B
2026-06-25
Grade Changed
Trust grade C → B
2026-06-25
Rank Moved
Rank rose 11 spots (#131 → #120)
Maintainer Checklist
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
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 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 refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
7.0k
Forks
898
Last Push
2026-07-10
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
16
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
10
Open Issues
93
Rank Change
▼1
was #110
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
66.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
14.3 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
14.8 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
16.8 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
9.2 / 20
Activity Inputs
77.1 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
15.3 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.7 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
7.4 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection8
CI-Tests9
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review5
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing10
License9
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies7
SAST8
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases8
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is MCP Registry safe?
MCP Registry has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.
Does MCP Registry publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Registry. 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 Registry have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
MCP Registry has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 7.4/10. 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 Registry actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does MCP Registry use?
MCP Registry ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP Registry's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to MCP Registry 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.
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
medium confidence
Implemented
MCP Registry appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
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
How this surface has changed
Detected changes to MCP Registry'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.
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Postgres
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
Maintain MCP Registry?
HVTrust scores MCP Registry 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.
Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.2 · Raw JSON
