LinkedIn MCP Server vs MCP Hangar
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of LinkedIn MCP Server and MCP Hangar, two MCP Servers projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
MCP Hangar leads on trust — 87.4/100 (Grade A) vs 87.2/100 (Grade A), a 0.2-point gap. Full breakdown below.
| Signal | LinkedIn MCP Serverstickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server | MCP Hangarmcp-hangar/mcp-hangar |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 87.2 | 87.4 |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
| Coverage grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #47 | #42 |
| Rank in MCP Servers | #11 | #8 |
| GitHub stars | 3.4k | 14 |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 4.9 / 10 | 8.3 / 10 |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Downloads | 13k/wk | 769/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 18.3 | 22.9 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 12.7 | 15.6 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 19.2 | 20.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 14.0 | 6.7 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | Implemented |
| External providers | — | 2 — Postgres, Redis |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | plugins | — |
| Provenance drift | Match | Match |
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 →