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 Apps leads on trust — 88.9/100 (Grade A) vs 75.7/100 (Grade B), a 13.2-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal MCP Appsmodelcontextprotocol/ext-apps mcp-proxysparfenyuk/mcp-proxy
HVTrust score 88.9 75.7
Evidence grade A B
Coverage grade B B
Overall rank #30 #215
Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration #2 #8
GitHub stars 2.9k 2.8k
Last updated 2d ago 60d ago
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10 5.2 / 10
License NOASSERTION MIT
Downloads 3.5M/wk 187k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 18.4 16.5
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 13.4 12.9
Maintenance / 20 17.8 8.0
Adoption / 20 17.0 15.3
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers 1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys No Yes
Plugin surface plugins
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 v4.3 →