Composio vs MCP Inspector
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Composio and MCP Inspector, 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.
MCP Inspector leads on trust — 90.4/100 (Grade A) vs 75.7/100 (Grade B), a 14.7-point gap. Note: MCP Inspector's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types. Full breakdown below.
| Signal | Composiocomposiohq/composio | MCP Inspectormodelcontextprotocol/inspector |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 75.7 | 90.4 |
| Evidence grade | B | A |
| Coverage grade | A | B |
| Overall rank | #75 | #9 |
| Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration | #6 | #1 |
| GitHub stars | 29.5k | 10.6k |
| Last updated | today | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | No | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 6.9 / 10 | 6.2 / 10 |
| License | MIT | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | 103k/wk | 185k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 13.0 | 18.8 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 10.8 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 14.4 | 13.8 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 19.9 |
| Adoption / 20 | 17.4 | 16.7 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Declared | Implemented |
| External providers | 3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI | — |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | plugins | plugins |
| Provenance drift | Partial | Match |
Open in the live compare tool →
Composio profile
MCP Inspector profile
More Protocols & Tool Integration →
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 v4.2 →