updated 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC

Pulsemcp MCP Servers

pulsemcp/mcp-servers

MCP (Model Context Protocol) Servers authored and maintained by the PulseMCP team. We build reliable servers thoughtfull

MCP Servers TypeScript Grade D Listed MIT
17.4/100
Rank #1179 of 1283
Compare Pulsemcp MCP Servers

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade D · 1/5 signals
Last push
2026-07-26 · 17d ago
Recent change
Rank +1

Is Pulsemcp MCP Servers safe? Pulsemcp MCP Servers scores 17.4/100 (Grade D), ranked #1179 of 1283 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; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-07-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#675 MCPfinder - MCP Server Discovery — 17.6 (D) → #676 MCP Sports Hub — 17.5 (D) → #678 Notebooklm MCP Secure — 17.4 (D) → #679 Audio File MCP App — 17.3 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 71 spots (#1106 → #1177)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1096
Maintainer Checklist
Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.
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 Pulsemcp MCP Servers View MCP Servers Report missing data
42.6
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#677
In MCP Servers

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 refreshed 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC · Repo last pushed 17 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars
76
Forks
9
Last Push
2026-07-26
17 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
1
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
21
Rank Change
▲1
was #1180

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

17.4 / 100 · 40.0% confidence

Pulsemcp MCP Servers MCP Servers average (761 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
5.0 / 25
in line with avg 5.0
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.5 below avg 13.3
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
8.5 / 17
in line with avg 8.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
12.1 / 20
in line with avg 12.4
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
4.5 / 20
1.3 below avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

42.6 / 100
StarsRepository reach
11.3 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
22.6 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
3.8 / 25
CommunityFork signal
4.7 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified

Is Pulsemcp MCP Servers safe?

Public trust evidence for Pulsemcp MCP Servers 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 Pulsemcp MCP Servers publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Pulsemcp MCP Servers. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Pulsemcp MCP Servers have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for Pulsemcp MCP Servers. 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 Pulsemcp MCP Servers actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 17 days ago.
What license does Pulsemcp MCP Servers use?
Pulsemcp MCP Servers ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Pulsemcp MCP Servers's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to Pulsemcp MCP Servers 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
Pulsemcp MCP Servers 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
None detected
No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
low confidence
Unknown
Package source metadata is missing or inconclusive
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
  • MCP signal live
  • External deps live
  • Tool / plugin surface live
  • Package provenance drift live

Maintain Pulsemcp MCP Servers?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Pulsemcp MCP Servers 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
Listed 1Rank 1
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 71 spots (#1106 → #1177)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1096
GitHub → npm: @pulsemcp/pulse-fetch

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 17.4 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/pulsemcp-mcp-servers.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/pulsemcp-mcp-servers)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/pulsemcp-mcp-servers"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/pulsemcp-mcp-servers.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON