Registry › Compare › Gitlab MCP vs Mobile MCP

Gitlab MCP vs Mobile MCP

Both are Grade A and 1.0 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Gitlab MCP leads on transparency and maintenance; Mobile MCP leads on supply-chain integrity and adoption.

A Gitlab MCP 90.9

MCP server for GitLab: 277 tools for projects, MRs, issues, pipelines, wikis and more via the GitLab REST/GraphQL API

zereight/gitlab-mcp · #18 overall · #4 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Gitlab MCP if transparency and maintenance matter most.

+1.8Maintenance: last push 1d ago, against 4d ago
+0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.3 against 7.5

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 and adoption matter most.

+2.0Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 41%
+1.0Adoption: 10.5k GitHub stars against 2.1k

Where they differ

19.9

Safety / IntegrityMobile MCP +2.0

21.9

15.6

TransparencyGitlab MCP +0.7

14.9

19.9

MaintenanceGitlab MCP +1.8

18.1

15.0

AdoptionMobile MCP +1.0

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 Gitlab 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	Gitlab MCPzereight/gitlab-mcp	Mobile MCPmobile-next/mobile-mcp
HVTrust score	90.9	91.9
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#18	#13
Rank in MCP Servers	#4	#3
GitHub stars	2.1k	10.5k
Last updated	1d ago	4d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	8.3 / 10	7.5 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	172k/wk	56k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	19.9	21.9
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	15.6	14.9
Maintenance / 20	19.9	18.1
Adoption / 20	15.0	16.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	—	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Gitlab 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 →