RegistryCompare › MCP Apps vs mcp-proxy

MCP Apps vs mcp-proxy

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of MCP Apps and mcp-proxy, 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-proxy leads on trust — 81.1/100 (Grade A) vs 73.4/100 (Grade B), a 7.7-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal MCP Appsmodelcontextprotocol/ext-apps mcp-proxysparfenyuk/mcp-proxy
HVTrust score 73.4 81.1
Evidence grade B A
Coverage grade B B
Overall rank #87 #58
Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration #7 #4
GitHub stars 2.7k 2.7k
Last updated 12d ago 15d ago
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
License NOASSERTION MIT
Downloads 1.6M/wk 292k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 12.5 17.2
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 8.5 13.4
Maintenance / 20 13.2 11.0
Adoption / 20 16.5 15.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers
Requires API keys No No
Plugin surface marketplace
Provenance drift Match Match
Open in the live compare tool → MCP Apps profile mcp-proxy 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 →