RegistryCompare › Codebase Memory MCP vs Safari MCP

Codebase Memory MCP vs Safari MCP

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Codebase Memory MCP and Safari 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.

Codebase Memory MCP leads on trust — 91.0/100 (Grade A) vs 86.0/100 (Grade A), a 5.0-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal Codebase Memory MCPDeusData/codebase-memory-mcp Safari MCPachiya-automation/safari-mcp
HVTrust score 91.0 86.0
Evidence grade A A
Coverage grade B B
Overall rank #7 #48
Rank in MCP Servers #1 #7
GitHub stars 40.9k 177
Last updated today today
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 7.5 / 10 6.1 / 10
License MIT MIT
Downloads 5k/wk 2k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 18.4 19.1
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 14.9 13.7
Maintenance / 20 20.0 19.4
Adoption / 20 15.9 9.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers
Requires API keys No No
Plugin surface
Provenance drift Match Match
Open in the live compare tool → Codebase Memory MCP profile Safari 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 v4.3 →