updated 2026-08-09 20:01 UTC

Windows MCP

CursorTouch/Windows-MCP

MCP Server for Computer Use in Windows

MCP Servers Python Grade C Listed MIT
56.9/100
Rank #362 of 1204
Compare Windows MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers 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 C · 2/5 signals
Last push
2026-08-09 · 0d ago
Recent change
Rank +2

Is Windows MCP safe? Windows MCP scores 56.9/100 (Grade C), ranked #362 of 1204 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.2/10; 54% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-09. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#116 Sauce Api MCP — 57.3 (C) → #117 Easyeda MCP Pro — 57.1 (C) → #119 Qdrant MCP Server — 56.7 (C) → #120 Perplexity MCP Server — 56.5 (C) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Expose more independent signals, such as package metadata, provenance, or public usage evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 93 spots (#268 → #361)
2026-08-07
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: declared → none
2026-08-07
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 6.3/10
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.2/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Windows MCP View MCP Servers Report missing data
83.2
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#118
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 C 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-09 20:01 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Activity & Reach

Stars
6.7k
Forks
812
Last Push
2026-08-09
today
Commits (4 wk)
54
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
10
Rank Change
▼1
was #361

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

56.9 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

Windows MCP MCP Servers average (718 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
17.9 / 25
12.8 above avg 5.1
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
18.0 / 18
4.7 above avg 13.3
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
13.8 / 17
5.0 above avg 8.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
18.9 / 20
6.4 above avg 12.5
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
9.2 / 20
3.7 above avg 5.5

Activity Inputs

83.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.0 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
21.7 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.5 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
Verified
pypi attestation
OSSF Scorecard
6.2 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 9, 2026
Signed Commits
54%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 0
CI-Tests 10
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 1
Contributors 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 0
License 10
Maintained 10
Packaging 10
Pinned-Dependencies 0
SAST 0
Security-Policy 10
Signed-Releases 0
Token-Permissions 9
Vulnerabilities 10

Is Windows MCP safe?

Windows 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 Windows MCP publish package provenance?
Yes. Windows MCP's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does Windows MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Windows MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.2/10. 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 Windows MCP actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Windows MCP use?
Windows MCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Windows MCP's commits signed?
54% of the last 100 commits to Windows 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
Windows 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
None detected
No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.
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
How this surface has changed

Detected changes to Windows 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

Maintain Windows MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Windows 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
Rank 2Listed 1Scorecard 1Surface 1
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 93 spots (#268 → #361)
2026-08-07
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: declared → none
2026-08-07
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 6.3/10
2026-07-15
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 22 spots (#296 → #318)
2026-07-14
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #296
GitHub → PyPI: windows-mcp

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 56.9 Grade C
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/windows-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/windows-mcp)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/windows-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/windows-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

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