MCP Zenml
Website
MCP server to connect an MCP client (Cursor, Claude Desktop etc) with your ZenML MLOps and LLMOps pipelines
Is MCP Zenml safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare MCP Zenml
How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: MCP Zenml scores 58.6/100 (Grade C), ranked #719 of 1378 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 4.7/10; 46% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-14. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How MCP Zenml 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 4.7 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Fuzzing 0 +9.0 → 67.6 B · #253 of 781
- Sign every commit46% signed today +2.7 → 61.3 C · #356 of 781
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP Zenml 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.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/zenml-io/mcp-zenml, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-14. 46% 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 4.7/10 (scanned Oct 12, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review1
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies10
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 1Contributors 6Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 10SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
Distributed as the container image docker.io/zenmldocker/mcp-zenml:1.5.1; HVTracker doesn't check that registry's source link yet.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 4.4/10
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 Zenml’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.
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 Zenml compares in MCP Servers
- #389 ripwire 58.8 +0.2
- #390 Wavyrai reMarkable MCP Server 58.7 +0.1
- #391 MCP Zenml 58.6 this agent
- #392 Teamwork MCP 58.3 −0.3
- #393 Buildkite MCP Server 58.2 −0.4
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP Zenml’s 58.6.
Where the 58.6 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average
58.6 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceMCP Zenml MCP Servers average (781 agents)
Quick Trust Read
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade C 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
56.5 / 100Common questions about MCP Zenml
Does MCP Zenml publish package provenance?
Does MCP Zenml have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is MCP Zenml actively maintained?
What license does MCP Zenml use?
Are MCP Zenml's commits signed?
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
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 →
- code
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to MCP Zenml'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.
Maintain MCP Zenml?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores MCP Zenml 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-zenml)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-zenml"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-zenml.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in MCP Servers
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