Codebase Memory MCP vs LinkedIn MCP Server
Both are Grade A and 2.4 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Codebase Memory MCP leads on transparency and adoption; LinkedIn MCP Server leads on supply-chain integrity.
High-performance code intelligence MCP server. Indexes codebases into a persistent knowledge graph — average repo in milliseconds. 158 languages, sub-ms queries, 99% fewer tokens. Single static binary, zero dependencies.
Choose Codebase Memory MCP if transparency and adoption matter most.
- +2.1Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.1 against 5.7
- +1.4Adoption: 46.4k GitHub stars against 3.8k
Open-source MCP server for LinkedIn. Give Claude and any MCP-compatible AI agent access to profiles, companies, jobs, and messages.
Choose LinkedIn MCP Server if supply-chain integrity matters most.
- +0.6Safety / Integrity: 98% of recent commits signed, against 26%
Where they differ
2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Codebase Memory MCP and LinkedIn 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 | LinkedIn MCP Serverstickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 91.5 | 89.1 |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
| Coverage grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #12 | #32 |
| Rank in MCP Servers | #3 | #5 |
| GitHub stars | 46.4k | 3.8k |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 8.1 / 10 | 5.7 / 10 |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Downloads | 2k/wk | 14k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 18.9 | 19.5 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 15.4 | 13.3 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 15.5 | 14.1 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | Implemented |
| External providers | — | — |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | — | plugins |
| Provenance drift | Match | 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 →