Is MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis safe to use?

MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis has an HVTrust score of 37.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #657 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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis?

MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis scores 37.9/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 1.5k GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis

svnscha/mcp-windbg

Model Context Protocol for WinDbg.

MCP Servers Python Grade D Listed MIT

37.9/100

Rank #657 of 1283

Compare MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis

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

2026-07-20 · 23d ago

Recent change

Rank +1

Is MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis safe? MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis scores 37.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #657 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; 70% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-07-20. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#281 Docspace MCP — 38.1 (D) → #282 MCP Fiscal Brasil — 37.9 (D) → #284 ProxmoxMCP-Plus — 37.8 (D) → #285 db-mcp (SQLite MCP Server) — 37.8 (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 26 spots (#631 → #657)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #630

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.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis View MCP Servers Report missing data

60.8

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#283

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

1.5k

Forks

146

Last Push

2026-07-20

23 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

625

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▲1

was #658

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

37.9 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis MCP Servers average (761 agents)

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

3.5 / 25

1.5 below 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

13.6 / 20

1.2 above avg 12.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

11.4 / 20

5.6 above avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

60.8 / 100

StarsRepository reach

19.1 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

21.8 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

9.7 / 25

CommunityFork signal

10.1 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

70%

of last 100 commits verified

Is MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis safe?

Public trust evidence for MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis 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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis. 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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis. 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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis actively maintained?

Maintained. Last push was 23 days ago.

What license does MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis use?

MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis's commits signed?

69% of the last 100 commits to MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis 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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

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

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 Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Server for WinDbg Crash Analysis 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 26 spots (#631 → #657)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #630

GitHub → PyPI: mcp-windbg

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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