Is MetaMCP safe?
MetaMCP scores 20.4/100 (Grade D), ranked #412 of 417 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage D (1 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
no OSSF Scorecard result yet;
14% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-06-22. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
20.4/100 · Grade D
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
14.1/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
0.7/25
What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-07-14
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #413
Maintainer Checklist
Add Scorecard coverageExpose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
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 D is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (1 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-15 01:30 UTC·Repo last pushed 23 days ago
Public trust evidence for MetaMCP 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 MetaMCP publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MetaMCP. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does MetaMCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for MetaMCP. 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 MetaMCP actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 23 days ago.
What license does MetaMCP use?
MetaMCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MetaMCP's commits signed?
14% of the last 100 commits to MetaMCP 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.
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
MetaMCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Extensions
Extension based plugin/integration surface detected.
database
shell
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
Maintain MetaMCP?
HVTrust scores MetaMCP 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.
Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.2 · Raw JSON
