updated 2026-08-11 20:02 UTC

Unla

AmoyLab/Unla

🧩 MCP Gateway - A lightweight gateway service that instantly transforms existing MCP Servers and APIs into MCP servers w

Protocols & Tool Integration TypeScript Grade D Listed MIT
22.2/100
Rank #963 of 1283
Compare Unla

How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration 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
2026-08-04 · 7d ago
Recent change
Rank +2

Is Unla safe? Unla scores 22.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #963 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; 12% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-04. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Protocols & Tool Integration

#47 arcade-mcp — 23.4 (D) → #48 MCP Java SDK — 23.3 (D) → #50 MCPJungle — 21.9 (D) → #51 code-mode — 19.7 (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 59 spots (#894 → #953)
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 442 spots (#479 → #921)
2026-08-06
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #498
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.
Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Unla View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data
65.1
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#49
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 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 2026-08-11 20:02 UTC · Repo last pushed 7 days ago

Activity & Reach

Stars
2.2k
Forks
179
Last Push
2026-08-04
7 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
6?
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
55
Rank Change
▼10
was #953

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Protocols & Tool Integration

22.2 / 100 · 50.0% confidence

Unla Protocols & Tool Integration average (57 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
0.6 / 25
8.0 below avg 8.6
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
0.9 below avg 11.7
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
8.5 / 17
2.9 below avg 11.4
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
13.2 / 20
0.6 below avg 13.8
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
8.0 / 20
2.4 below avg 10.4

Activity Inputs

65.1 / 100
StarsRepository reach
20.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
10.5 / 25
CommunityFork signal
10.5 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
12%
of last 100 commits verified

Is Unla safe?

Public trust evidence for Unla 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 Unla publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Unla. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Unla have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for Unla. 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 Unla actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 7 day(s).
What license does Unla use?
Unla ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Unla's commits signed?
12% of the last 100 commits to Unla 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
Unla appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
None detected
No clear third-party provider dependency detected.
Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
medium confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
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 Unla?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Unla 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
Rank 2Listed 1
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 59 spots (#894 → #953)
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 442 spots (#479 → #921)
2026-08-06
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #498
GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 22.2 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/unla.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/unla)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/unla"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/unla.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration

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