Is MCP Rubber Duck safe to use?

MCP Rubber Duck has an HVTrust score of 42.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #575 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 Rubber Duck?

MCP Rubber Duck scores 42.5/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 174 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

MCP Rubber Duck

nesquikm/mcp-rubber-duck

An MCP server that acts as a bridge to query multiple OpenAI-compatible LLMs with MCP tool access. Just like rubber duck

MCP Servers TypeScript Grade D Listed MIT

42.5/100

Rank #575 of 1283

Compare MCP Rubber Duck

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

2026-08-10 · 2d ago

Recent change

Rank +1

Is MCP Rubber Duck safe? MCP Rubber Duck scores 42.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #575 of 1283 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 34% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#219 Mirroir MCP — 42.7 (D) → #220 E18e MCP — 42.7 (D) → #222 Substack MCP Server — 42.3 (D) → #223 Yuque MCP Server — 42.3 (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 13 spots (#562 → #575)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #563

Maintainer Checklist

Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.

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 Rubber Duck View MCP Servers Report missing data

61.1

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#221

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

174

Forks

Last Push

2026-08-10

2 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

—

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▲1

was #576

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

42.5 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

MCP Rubber Duck MCP Servers average (761 agents)

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

9.2 / 25

4.2 above avg 5.0

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

18.0 / 18

4.7 above 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

17.1 / 20

4.7 above avg 12.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

5.4 / 20

in line with avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

61.1 / 100

StarsRepository reach

13.5 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.7 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

16.2 / 25

CommunityFork signal

6.5 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

Verified

npm attestation

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

34%

of last 100 commits verified

Is MCP Rubber Duck safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP Rubber Duck 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 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?

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

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 2 day(s).

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?

34% 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

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

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#562 → #575)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #563

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)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON