RegistryCompare › MCP Inspector vs mcp-proxy

MCP Inspector vs mcp-proxy

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of MCP Inspector 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 Inspector leads on trust — 89.9/100 (Grade A) vs 78.5/100 (Grade B), a 11.4-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal MCP Inspectormodelcontextprotocol/inspector mcp-proxysparfenyuk/mcp-proxy
HVTrust score 89.9 78.5
Evidence grade A B
Coverage grade B B
Overall rank #12 #74
Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration #1 #6
GitHub stars 10.7k 2.7k
Last updated 2d ago 25d ago
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10 5.2 / 10
License NOASSERTION MIT
Downloads 185k/wk 438k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 18.7 16.5
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 13.7 12.9
Maintenance / 20 19.9 10.3
Adoption / 20 16.7 15.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers
Requires API keys Yes Yes
Plugin surface
Provenance drift Match Match
Open in the live compare tool → MCP Inspector 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 →