Model Context Protocol / MCP

Model Context Protocol Servers

Protocols & Tool Integration TypeScript Grade C Listed NOASSERTION
64.0/100
Rank #233 of 1204
Compare Model Context Protocol / MCP

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 B · 3/5 signals
Last push
2026-08-05 · 4d ago
Recent change
Rank +3

Is Model Context Protocol / MCP safe? Model Context Protocol / MCP scores 64.0/100 (Grade C), ranked #233 of 1204 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 6.6/10; 78% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-05. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Protocols & Tool Integration

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 45 spots (#183 → #228)
2026-08-07
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: declared → none
2026-08-07
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, Postgres, Redis
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.6/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
89.2
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#21

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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-09 19:01 UTC · Repo last pushed 4 days ago

Activity & Reach

Stars
89.4k
Forks
11.4k
Last Push
2026-08-05
4 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
19?
Downloads (7d)
HN mentions (30d)
2
Open Issues
241
Rank Change
▼5
was #228

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Protocols & Tool Integration

64.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Model Context Protocol / MCP Protocols & Tool Integration average (44 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
12.2 / 25
2.0 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
14.1 / 17
1.8 above avg 12.3
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
14.3 / 20
in line with avg 14.7
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
11.9 / 20
1.3 above avg 10.6

Activity Inputs

89.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
29.7 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.4 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
16.2 / 25
CommunityFork signal
18.9 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
6.6 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 9, 2026
Signed Commits
78%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 6
CI-Tests 10
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 7
Contributors 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 0
License 9
Maintained 10
Packaging 10
Pinned-Dependencies 2
SAST 7
Security-Policy 10
Signed-Releases -1
Token-Permissions 0
Vulnerabilities 0

Is Model Context Protocol / MCP safe?

Model Context Protocol / MCP 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 Model Context Protocol / MCP publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Model Context Protocol / MCP. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Model Context Protocol / MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Model Context Protocol / MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.6/10. 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 Model Context Protocol / MCP actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 4 day(s).
What license does Model Context Protocol / MCP use?
Model Context Protocol / MCP ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Model Context Protocol / MCP's commits signed?
78% of the last 100 commits to Model Context Protocol / MCP 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
Model Context Protocol / MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
low confidence
None detected
No clear third-party provider dependency detected.
Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
1 tags
Broad capability areas 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 Model Context Protocol / MCP'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
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: declared → none
2026-08-07
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, Postgres, Redis
2026-06-05
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-06-05
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, Postgres, Redis
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain Model Context Protocol / MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Model Context Protocol / MCP 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
Rank 9HVTrust 2Grade 2Score 2Surface 2Listed 1Scorecard 1MCP 1Surface 1Surface 1
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 45 spots (#183 → #228)
2026-08-07
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: declared → none
2026-08-07
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, Postgres, Redis
2026-08-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#186 → #196)
2026-07-29
Rank Moved
Rank rose 10 spots (#199 → #189)
2026-07-28
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#189 → #199)
2026-07-26
Rank Moved
Rank rose 14 spots (#202 → #188)
2026-07-14
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#165 → #177)
2026-07-13
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 23 spots (#142 → #165)
2026-07-04
Activity Score Changed
Activity score up 5pts (85 → 90)
2026-06-29
Rank Moved
Rank rose 12 spots (#158 → #146)
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#145 → #156)
2026-06-05
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-06-05
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, Postgres, Redis
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-06-04
Grade Changed
Trust grade C → B
2026-05-29
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 9.9pts (54.5 → 64.4)
2026-05-28
Activity Score Changed
Activity score up 13pts (73 → 86)
2026-05-27
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 6.4/10
2026-05-27
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → C
2026-05-27
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 26.3pts (27.5 → 53.8)
2026-05-25
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #26

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 64.0 Grade C
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/model-context-protocol-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/model-context-protocol-mcp)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/model-context-protocol-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/model-context-protocol-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.2 · Raw JSON