updated 2026-11-05 12:09 UTC

MCP Specification

Repository Website by modelcontextprotocol

Specification and documentation for the Model Context Protocol

Protocols & Tool Integration TypeScript Listed NOASSERTION

Is MCP Specification safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

OSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
Provenance None
Signed commits 79%
Last push today
Compare MCP Specification

How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →
Suggest a correction

In detail: MCP Specification scores 68.4/100 (Grade B), ranked #415 of 1374 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 7.0/10; 79% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-11-05. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How MCP Specification 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.

Already done? Suggest a correctionAdd the trust badge

Chain of custody

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

  1. Source Partly signed

    github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol, NOASSERTION, last pushed 2026-11-05. 79% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.

  2. Review and release Strong

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 7.0/10 (scanned Nov 2, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review10
    • Branch Protection5
    • Signed Releasesn/a
    • Dangerous Workflow10
    • Token Permissions0
    • Pinned Dependencies3
    All 18 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 5
    CI-Tests 10
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 10
    Contributors 10
    Dangerous-Workflow 10
    Dependency-Update-Tool 10
    Fuzzing 0
    License 9
    Maintained 10
    Packaging -1
    Pinned-Dependencies 3
    SAST 6
    Security-Policy 10
    Signed-Releases -1
    Token-Permissions 0
    Vulnerabilities 6

  3. Published packages None

    No registry package. MCP Specification is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.

Changes to this chain

No change to package provenance, package source links, Scorecard coverage or license in HVTracker's daily snapshots of MCP Specification.

Evidence behind this score

Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.

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

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues MCP Specification’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 Specification compares in Protocols & Tool Integration

  1. #20 Model Context Protocol / MCP 69.4 +1.0
  2. #21 Microsoft MCP Catalog 68.6 +0.2
  3. #22 MCP Specification 68.4 this agent
  4. #23 GitHub MCP Server 67.9 −0.5
  5. #24 MCP Go 66.8 −1.6

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Specification’s 68.4.

Where the 68.4 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average

68.4 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Specification Protocols & Tool Integration average (63 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
12.7 / 25
1.6 above avg 11.1
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
1.3 below avg 12.1
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
14.4 / 17
1.4 above avg 13.0
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
19.5 / 20
5.0 above avg 14.5
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
9.6 / 20
1.5 below avg 11.1

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-11-02
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#403 → #413)
2026-10-31
Rank Moved
Rank rose 14 spots (#412 → #398)
2026-10-29
Rank Moved
Rank rose 38 spots (#454 → #416)
Maintainer Checklist
Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Compare with another agent
View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data
87.5
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#22
In Protocols & Tool Integration

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 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-11-05 12:09 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-11-05

Activity & Reach

Stars
9.6k
Forks
1.9k
Last Push
2026-11-05
today
Commits (4 wk)
74
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
71
Rank Change
=
was #415

Analysis

Activity Inputs

87.5 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.9 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
23.4 / 25
CommunityFork signal
15.2 / 20

Common questions about MCP Specification

MCP Specification 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 Specification publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP Specification. 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 Specification have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
MCP Specification has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 7.0/10. 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 Specification actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does MCP Specification use?
MCP Specification ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP Specification's commits signed?
79% of the last 100 commits to MCP Specification 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 Specification 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.
Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
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 Specification'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.

2026-10-07
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: declared → implemented

Maintain MCP Specification?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP Specification 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
Rank 27MCP 1
2026-11-02
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#403 → #413)
2026-10-31
Rank Moved
Rank rose 14 spots (#412 → #398)
2026-10-29
Rank Moved
Rank rose 38 spots (#454 → #416)
2026-10-28
Rank Moved
Rank rose 10 spots (#464 → #454)
2026-10-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 32 spots (#439 → #471)
2026-10-22
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 31 spots (#408 → #439)
2026-10-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 17 spots (#381 → #398)
2026-10-07
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: declared → implemented
2026-10-07
Rank Moved
Rank rose 51 spots (#437 → #386)
2026-10-03
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#431 → #443)
2026-09-25
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#426 → #436)
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 257 spots (#172 → #429)
2026-09-21
Rank Moved
Rank rose 257 spots (#425 → #168)
2026-09-13
Rank Moved
Rank rose 19 spots (#425 → #406)
2026-09-11
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 14 spots (#407 → #421)
2026-09-07
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 29 spots (#365 → #394)
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 68 spots (#289 → #357)
2026-09-04
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#277 → #289)
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 37 spots (#240 → #277)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 24 spots (#210 → #234)
2026-08-27
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#192 → #205)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#181 → #192)
2026-08-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#167 → #179)
2026-08-22
Rank Moved
Rank rose 11 spots (#184 → #173)
2026-08-19
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#173 → #183)
2026-08-17
Rank Moved
Rank rose 12 spots (#184 → #172)
2026-08-13
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#165 → #177)
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 19 spots (#140 → #159)
GitHub → Website →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 68.4 Grade B
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-specification.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-specification)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-specification"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-specification.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration

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