Is MCP Rubber Duck safe to use?

MCP Rubber Duck has an HVTrust score of 77.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #232 of 1374 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for MCP Rubber Duck?

MCP Rubber Duck scores 77.7/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 180 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

MCP Rubber Duck

Repository

An MCP server that acts as a bridge to query multiple OpenAI-compatible LLMs with MCP tool access. Just like rubber duck debugging, explain your problems to various AI "ducks" who can actually research and get different perspectives!

MCP Servers TypeScript Listed MIT

Is MCP Rubber Duck safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

OSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

Provenance Attested

Signed commits 24%

Last push 8d ago

Advisories None known

Compare MCP Rubber Duck

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: MCP Rubber Duck scores 77.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #232 of 1374 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 6.0/10; 24% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (mcp-rubber-duck); last pushed 2026-11-02. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How MCP Rubber Duck could raise its score

Each line changes one public signal and recomputes with the live scoring function. The gains don't add up exactly, because the score is capped near the top.

Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 6.0 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +6.2 → 83.9 A · #49 of 778
Sign every commit24% signed today +3.8 → 81.5 A · #75 of 778

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP Rubber Duck and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.

Source Partly signed

github.com/nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck, MIT, last pushed 2026-11-02. 24% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
Review and release Mixed

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 6.0/10 (scanned Nov 6, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions10
- Pinned Dependencies4
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 0

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 3

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 4

SAST 10

Security-Policy 0

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 10

Vulnerabilities 1
Published packages Linked and attested
- npm mcp-rubber-duck Source link points back to this repo Build provenance attested
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: mcp-rubber-duck 1.20.14. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-10).

Changes to this chain

2026-09-23 Package provenance attestation detected
2026-09-02 OSSF Scorecard: 5.9/10

Evidence behind this score

Coverage B: 3 of 5 independent evidence types found.

GitHub repository data
Package downloads
Supply-chain checks
Public actions (missing)
Community mentions (missing)

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues MCP Rubber Duck’s score as an Ed25519-signed credential, valid for 7 days. You can check it offline against HVTracker’s published key; if anyone changes a number after signing, verification fails.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

What this score doesn’t check

It covers who ships the code, not what the code does. It doesn’t read tool descriptions or prompts for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you connect it, such as Cisco MCP Scanner or Snyk Agent Scan.

How MCP Rubber Duck compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Rubber Duck’s 77.7.

Where the 77.7 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

77.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Rubber Duck MCP Servers average (778 agents)

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

16.2 / 25

5.4 above avg 10.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

18.0 / 18

4.3 above avg 13.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

13.6 / 17

1.3 above avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

16.8 / 20

4.6 above avg 12.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

9.4 / 20

1.8 above avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Increase the share of verified signed commits for clearer maintainer identity.

Recent Changes

2026-11-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 41 spots (#262 → #221)

2026-11-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 18 spots (#280 → #262)

2026-11-02

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 5pts (57 → 62)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.0/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

60.7

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#132

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 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 →

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars

180

Forks

Last Push

2026-11-02

8 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

987

npm

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼5

was #227

Analysis

Activity Inputs

60.7 / 100

StarsRepository reach

13.5 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

23.9 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

16.7 / 25

CommunityFork signal

6.5 / 20

Common questions about MCP Rubber Duck

Public supply-chain signals for MCP Rubber Duck are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but MCP Rubber Duck carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.

Does MCP Rubber Duck publish package provenance?

Yes. MCP Rubber Duck's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.

Does MCP Rubber Duck have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

MCP Rubber Duck has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.0/10. 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 Rubber Duck actively maintained?

Maintained. Last push was 8 days ago.

What license does MCP Rubber Duck use?

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

Are MCP Rubber Duck's commits signed?

24% of the last 100 commits to MCP Rubber Duck 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 Rubber Duck appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

3 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Declared

Declared plugin/integration 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

How this surface has changed

Detected changes to MCP Rubber Duck'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.

2026-09-23

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Google Gemini, Groq, OpenAI

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Provenance Added

Package provenance attestation detected

Maintain MCP Rubber Duck?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Rubber Duck 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

2026-11-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 41 spots (#262 → #221)

2026-11-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 18 spots (#280 → #262)

2026-11-02

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 5pts (57 → 62)

2026-10-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 30 spots (#246 → #276)

2026-10-30

Rank Moved

Rank rose 31 spots (#277 → #246)

2026-10-21

Rank Moved

Rank rose 12 spots (#289 → #277)

2026-10-20

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#279 → #289)

2026-10-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#259 → #270)

2026-10-15

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 53 spots (#206 → #259)

2026-10-13

Rank Moved

Rank rose 61 spots (#268 → #207)

2026-10-13

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 3.0pts (74.1 → 77.1)

2026-10-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 62 spots (#191 → #253)

2026-09-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#165 → #193)

2026-09-25

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#184 → #171)

2026-09-23

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Google Gemini, Groq, OpenAI

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Provenance Added

Package provenance attestation detected

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 525 spots (#706 → #181)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 46.5pts (30.7 → 77.2)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #706

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-10

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → B

2026-09-10

Rank Moved

Rank rose 719 spots (#891 → #172)

2026-09-10

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 26.5pts (51.0 → 77.5)

2026-09-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 40 spots (#851 → #891)

2026-09-08

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#864 → #851)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 22 spots (#842 → #864)

2026-09-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#832 → #842)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 62 spots (#770 → #832)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 30 spots (#740 → #770)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 36 spots (#704 → #740)

2026-09-02

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 5.9/10

2026-09-02

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 184 spots (#888 → #704)

2026-09-02

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 8.3pts (41.7 → 50.0)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 35 spots (#853 → #888)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#825 → #853)

2026-08-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 32 spots (#793 → #825)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 47 spots (#746 → #793)

2026-08-28

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 29 spots (#717 → #746)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 23 spots (#694 → #717)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 101 spots (#593 → #694)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#581 → #592)

2026-08-13

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 12 spots (#573 → #585)

GitHub → npm: mcp-rubber-duck

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON

MCP Rubber Duck

How MCP Rubber Duck could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages Linked and attested

What you install today No known advisories

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How MCP Rubber Duck compares in MCP Servers

Where the 77.7 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about MCP Rubber Duck

AI agent surface

Maintain MCP Rubber Duck?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers