A2A / Agent2Agent Protocol vs MCP Python SDK
MCP Python SDK leads on trust: 95.0/100 (Grade A) against 89.7/100 (Grade A), a 5.3-point gap. A2A / Agent2Agent Protocol rests on broader evidence; MCP Python SDK leads on supply-chain integrity and maintenance. Note: MCP Python SDK's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Agent2Agent (A2A) is an open protocol enabling communication and interoperability between opaque agentic applications.
Choose A2A / Agent2Agent Protocol if breadth of evidence matters most.
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
The official Python SDK for Model Context Protocol servers and clients
Choose MCP Python SDK if supply-chain integrity and maintenance matter most.
- +1.0Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.8 against 7.0
- +0.9Maintenance: last push 1d ago, against 2d ago
- +0.8Adoption: 64.5M weekly downloads against 2.6M
- +0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.8 against 7.0
Where they differ
1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of A2A / Agent2Agent Protocol and MCP Python SDK, two Protocols & Tool Integration projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | A2A / Agent2Agent Protocola2aproject/A2A | MCP Python SDKmodelcontextprotocol/python-sdk |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 89.7 | 95.0 |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
| Coverage grade | A | B |
| Overall rank | #27 | #2 |
| Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration | #4 | #1 |
| GitHub stars | 26.2k | 24.6k |
| Last updated | 2d ago | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 7.0 / 10 | 7.8 / 10 |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Downloads | 2.6M/wk | 64.5M/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 21.2 | 22.2 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 14.4 | 15.1 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 17.5 | 18.4 |
| Adoption / 20 | 19.2 | 20.0 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | — | Implemented |
| External providers | — | — |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | extensions | extensions |
| Provenance drift | Unknown | Match |
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →