Registry › Compare › Codebase Memory MCP vs Containers Kubernetes MCP Server

Codebase Memory MCP vs Containers Kubernetes MCP Server

Both are Grade A and 3.3 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Codebase Memory MCP leads on transparency and adoption.

A Codebase Memory MCP 93.0

Local code intelligence for developers and AI agents. Connect code, docs and infrastructure in a persistent graph, with CBM Lens, MCP tools, agent integrations and change-aware test selection.

DeusData/codebase-memory-mcp · #7 overall · #1 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Codebase Memory MCP if transparency and adoption matter most.

+2.4Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.5 against 5.6
+2.4Adoption: 48.4k GitHub stars against 2.2k

A Containers Kubernetes MCP Server 89.7

Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Kubernetes and OpenShift

containers/kubernetes-mcp-server · #35 overall · #8 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Containers Kubernetes MCP Server doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

Where they differ

19.8

Safety / IntegrityCodebase Memory MCP +0.3

19.5

15.7

TransparencyCodebase Memory MCP +2.4

13.3

16.9

AdoptionCodebase Memory MCP +2.4

14.5

+2.6

Runtime calibrationContainers Kubernetes MCP Server +1.8

+4.4

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Codebase Memory MCP and Containers Kubernetes MCP Server, two MCP Servers projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Codebase Memory MCPDeusData/codebase-memory-mcp	Containers Kubernetes MCP Servercontainers/kubernetes-mcp-server
HVTrust score	93.0	89.7
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#7	#35
Rank in MCP Servers	#1	#8
GitHub stars	48.4k	2.2k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	8.5 / 10	5.6 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	17k/wk	69k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	19.8	19.5
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	15.7	13.3
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	16.9	14.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	—
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Codebase Memory MCP profile Containers Kubernetes MCP Server profile More MCP Servers →

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 →