Is Wet MCP safe to use?

Wet MCP has an HVTrust score of 34.7/100 (Grade D), ranked #703 of 1283 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Wet MCP?

Wet MCP scores 34.7/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 16 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Wet MCP

n24q02m/wet-mcp

Open-source MCP server for AI agents: web search, content extraction, and library docs -- 5-strategy scraping, runs with

MCP Servers Python Grade D Listed Apache-2.0

34.7/100

Rank #703 of 1283

Compare Wet MCP

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 C · 2/5 signals

Last push

2026-08-12 · 0d ago

Recent change

Rank +1

Is Wet MCP safe? Wet MCP scores 34.7/100 (Grade D), ranked #703 of 1283 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 89% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-12. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#309 Agent360 Browser MCP — 34.8 (D) → #310 MeiGen AI Design MCP — 34.8 (D) → #312 Cisco Modeling Labs CML — 34.7 (D) → #313 Apache Pinot MCP Server — 34.5 (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 33 spots (#671 → #704)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #671

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 Wet MCP View MCP Servers Report missing data

60.2

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#311

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 C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-08-12

today

Commits (4 wk)

119

Downloads (7d)

573

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▲1

was #704

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

34.7 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

Wet MCP MCP Servers average (761 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

4.5 / 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

20.0 / 20

7.6 above avg 12.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

6.6 / 20

0.8 above avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

60.2 / 100

StarsRepository reach

7.4 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

25.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

2.8 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

89%

of last 100 commits verified

Is Wet MCP safe?

Public trust evidence for Wet MCP 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 Wet MCP publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Wet 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 Wet MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for Wet MCP. 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 Wet MCP actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).

What license does Wet MCP use?

Wet MCP ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Wet MCP's commits signed?

89% of the last 100 commits to Wet 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

Wet MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

7 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Declared

Declared plugin/integration surface detected.

browser
shell

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

Package Provenance Drift

high confidence

Match

Published package metadata matches the tracked repo

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

Maintain Wet MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Wet 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.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-08-10

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 33 spots (#671 → #704)

2026-08-08

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #671

GitHub → PyPI: wet-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/wet-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/wet-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/wet-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/wet-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

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