Registry › Compare › Codebase Memory MCP vs Mobile MCP

Codebase Memory MCP vs Mobile MCP

Both are Grade A and 1.4 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Codebase Memory MCP leads on transparency and maintenance; Mobile MCP leads on supply-chain integrity.

A Codebase Memory MCP 93.3

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 maintenance matter most.

+1.9Maintenance: last push today, against 4d ago
+0.8Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.5 against 7.5
+0.8Adoption: 48.5k GitHub stars against 10.5k

A Mobile MCP 91.9

Mobile MCP: let AI agents drive your iOS and Android apps. MCP server for simulators, emulators and real devices. Works with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and any MCP client.

mobile-next/mobile-mcp · #13 overall · #3 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Mobile MCP if supply-chain integrity matters most.

+1.6Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 43%

Where they differ

20.3

Safety / IntegrityMobile MCP +1.6

21.9

15.7

TransparencyCodebase Memory MCP +0.8

14.9

20.0

MaintenanceCodebase Memory MCP +1.9

18.1

16.8

AdoptionCodebase Memory MCP +0.8

16.0

+2.5

Runtime calibrationMobile MCP +0.5

+3.0

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Codebase Memory MCP and Mobile MCP, 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	Mobile MCPmobile-next/mobile-mcp
HVTrust score	93.3	91.9
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#7	#13
Rank in MCP Servers	#1	#3
GitHub stars	48.5k	10.5k
Last updated	today	4d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	8.5 / 10	7.5 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	15k/wk	56k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	20.3	21.9
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	15.7	14.9
Maintenance / 20	20.0	18.1
Adoption / 20	16.8	16.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Codebase Memory MCP profile Mobile MCP 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 →