Registry › Compare › FastMCP vs MCP Inspector

FastMCP vs MCP Inspector

MCP Inspector leads on trust: 91.7/100 (Grade A) against 80.9/100 (Grade A), a 10.8-point gap. FastMCP leads on adoption; MCP Inspector leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance.

A FastMCP 80.9

🚀 The fast, Pythonic way to build MCP servers and clients.

PrefectHQ/fastmcp · #150 overall · #10 Protocols & Tool Integration · coverage B (3/5)

Choose FastMCP if adoption matters most.

+3.1Adoption: 13.7M weekly downloads against 256.1k

A MCP Inspector 91.7

Visual testing tool for MCP servers

modelcontextprotocol/inspector · #12 overall · #3 Protocols & Tool Integration · coverage B (3/5)

Choose MCP Inspector if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+6.7Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.3 against 5.5
+1.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.3 against 5.5

Where they differ

11.9

Safety / IntegrityMCP Inspector +6.7

18.6

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceMCP Inspector +7.2

18.0

13.2

TransparencyMCP Inspector +1.5

14.7

20.0

AdoptionFastMCP +3.1

16.9

+5.0

Runtime calibrationFastMCP +1.5

+3.5

1 dimension identical: Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of FastMCP 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.

Full evidence

Signal	FastMCPPrefectHQ/fastmcp	MCP Inspectormodelcontextprotocol/inspector
HVTrust score	80.9	91.7
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#150	#12
Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration	#10	#3
GitHub stars	28.2k	11.1k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.5 / 10	7.3 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	NOASSERTION
Downloads	13.7M/wk	256k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	11.9	18.6
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.2	14.7
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	20.0	16.9
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI	—
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	—
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → FastMCP 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 v4.4 →