Registry › Compare › KiCad MCP Pro vs LinkedIn MCP Server

KiCad MCP Pro vs LinkedIn MCP Server

Both are Grade A and 0.2 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. KiCad MCP Pro leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency; LinkedIn MCP Server leads on adoption.

A KiCad MCP Pro 88.9

MCP server for KiCad, connecting AI agents to schematic and PCB workflows, ERC/DRC validation, DFM checks, BOM analysis, and manufacturing preparation—with controlled edits and human-gated release workflows.

oaslananka/kicad-mcp-pro · #34 overall · #7 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Choose KiCad MCP Pro if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+3.6Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 98%
+2.4Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.5 against 5.7

A LinkedIn MCP Server 89.1

Open-source MCP server for LinkedIn. Give Claude and any MCP-compatible AI agent access to profiles, companies, jobs, and messages.

stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server · #32 overall · #5 MCP Servers · coverage B (3/5)

Choose LinkedIn MCP Server if adoption matters most.

+4.1Adoption: 13.7k weekly downloads against 5.7k

Where they differ

23.1

Safety / IntegrityKiCad MCP Pro +3.6

19.5

15.7

TransparencyKiCad MCP Pro +2.4

13.3

10.0

AdoptionLinkedIn MCP Server +4.1

14.1

+2.1

Runtime calibrationLinkedIn MCP Server +2.1

+4.2

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of KiCad MCP Pro and LinkedIn MCP Server, 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	KiCad MCP Prooaslananka/kicad-mcp-pro	LinkedIn MCP Serverstickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
HVTrust score	88.9	89.1
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#34	#32
Rank in MCP Servers	#7	#5
GitHub stars	123	3.8k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	8.5 / 10	5.7 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	6k/wk	14k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	23.1	19.5
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	15.7	13.3
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	10.0	14.1
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI	—
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → KiCad MCP Pro profile LinkedIn MCP Server 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 →