Is MCP Specification safe to use?

MCP Specification has an HVTrust score of 67.6/100 (Grade B), ranked #166 of 1204 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for MCP Specification?

MCP Specification scores 67.6/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 8.9k GitHub stars and is categorized under Protocols & Tool Integration.

MCP Specification

modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol

Specification and documentation for the Model Context Protocol

Protocols & Tool Integration TypeScript Grade B Listed NOASSERTION

67.6/100

Rank #166 of 1204

Compare MCP Specification

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

Pick any agent to compare →

Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

Open compare tool Suggest correction

Listing state

Listed

Evidence coverage

Grade C · 2/5 signals

Last push

2026-08-06 · 3d ago

Recent change

Rank +1

Is MCP Specification safe? MCP Specification scores 67.6/100 (Grade B), ranked #166 of 1204 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; 98% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-06. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Protocols & Tool Integration

#11 MCP Registry — 68.2 (B) → #12 Microsoft MCP Catalog — 67.9 (B) → #14 MCP TypeScript SDK — 67.0 (B) → #15 Context7 — 66.8 (B) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#140 → #159)

2026-08-07

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

2026-07-14

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#108 → #122)

Maintainer Checklist

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 Specification View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data

88.3

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#13

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 →

Activity & Reach

Stars

8.9k

Forks

1.7k

Last Push

2026-08-06

3 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

234

Downloads (7d)

—

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼7

was #159

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Protocols & Tool Integration

67.6 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP Specification Protocols & Tool Integration average (44 agents)

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

13.7 / 25

3.5 above avg 10.2

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

1.0 below avg 11.8

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

14.4 / 17

2.1 above avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

19.8 / 20

5.1 above avg 14.7

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

9.5 / 20

1.1 below avg 10.6

Activity Inputs

88.3 / 100

StarsRepository reach

23.7 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.6 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

15.0 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

7.0 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 9, 2026

Signed Commits

98%

of last 100 commits verified

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 4

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 7

Is MCP Specification safe?

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 3 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?

98% 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

medium confidence

Declared

MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

medium confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Anthropic

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.

2026-08-07

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

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

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#140 → #159)

2026-08-07

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

2026-07-14

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#108 → #122)

2026-07-13

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#98 → #108)

2026-06-24

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 7.3/10

2026-06-24

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-06-24

Rank Moved

Rank rose 185 spots (#278 → #93)

2026-06-24

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 42.1pts (26.8 → 68.9)

2026-06-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 22 spots (#256 → #278)

2026-06-21

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 16 spots (#231 → #247)

2026-06-20

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #231

GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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 v4.2 · Raw JSON