Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-10 01:39 UTC

CursorTouch / Windows-MCP

MCP Server for Computer Use in Windows

PythonMIT★ 8,491 stars⑂ 931 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined

CursorTouch/Windows-MCP holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (64/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

90
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CursorTouchOrganization
301 followers3 public repossince Mar 2025

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIwindows-mcp0.8.839,533170 days agowindowsmcpaidesktopai-agent

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 654 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year654
human_commit_share0.81
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv0.8.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases22.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 8,491 stars
24.7/25Forks — 931 forks
9/15Watchers — 43 watchers
Inputs used
forks931
stars8,491
watchers43
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.3/80Monthly downloads — 39,533 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageswindows-mcp
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads39,533
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 51 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled51
top_contributor_share0.73
How it's scored
37.1/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
22.4/30PR acceptance — 203/272 decided PRs merged
11.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 9/10 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs203
open_issues19
closed_issues143
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d14
prs_decided_30d15
issue_closed_ratio0.883
closed_unmerged_prs69
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d9
first_time_prs_decided_30d10
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.8/25Owner reach — 301 followers of CursorTouch
7.6/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers301
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginCursorTouch
public_repos3
account_age_days587

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 17 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswindows-mcp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 20 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdesktop, mcp, tools, windows, ai, windows-automation
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 20 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages101
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 101 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 69 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.852
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,898
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.19
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.1/55Manageable file sizes — 5/142 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes225,324
source_files_sampled142
oversized_source_files5
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

8,491GitHub stars
51contributors
654commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
19open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:windows-mcp@0.8.8; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 931 ⇿
0Stars
931Forks
16Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

02004006008001,000926632025-062026-022026-10
Major 0Minor 3Patch 11

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-10-10 01:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests20 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick>=8.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcomtypes>=1.4.15pyproject.toml
PyPIdxcam>=0.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfastmcp>=3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIfuzzywuzzy>=0.18.0pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdownify>=1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=11.2.1pyproject.toml
PyPIplatformdirs>=4.3.8pyproject.toml
PyPIposthog>=7.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpsutil>=7.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments>=2.20.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-levenshtein>=0.27.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpywin32>=311pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.33.0pyproject.toml
PyPItabulate>=0.9.0pyproject.toml
PyPIthefuzz>=0.22.1pyproject.toml
PyPIuuid7>=0.1.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 101

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 84 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIclick8.5.0direct
PyPIcomtypes1.4.17direct
PyPIdxcam0.3.0direct
PyPIfastmcp4.0.11direct
PyPIfuzzywuzzy0.18.0direct
PyPImarkdownify1.2.3direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPIplatformdirs4.12.3direct
PyPIposthog7.64.1direct
PyPIpsutil7.2.2direct
PyPIpygments2.21.0direct
PyPIpython-levenshtein0.27.5direct
PyPIpywin32312direct
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
PyPItabulate0.10.0direct
PyPIthefuzz0.22.1direct
PyPIuuid70.1.0direct
PyPIaiofile3.12.3indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.15.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIauthlib1.8.0indirect
PyPIbackoff2.2.1indirect
PyPIbeartype0.22.9indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0indirect
PyPIcachetools7.2.0indirect
PyPIcaio0.12.9indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.5.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.2indirect
PyPIcyclopts5.1.1indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIdnspython2.8.0indirect
PyPIdocstring-parser0.18.0indirect
PyPIemail-validator2.3.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfastmcp-slim4.0.11indirect
PyPIgriffelib2.3.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.13.1indirect
PyPIhttpx22.13.1indirect
PyPIhttpx2-jsfetch1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.20indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.6.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjoserfc1.7.5indirect
PyPIjsonref1.1.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-path0.5.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIlevenshtein0.27.5indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImcp2.3.0indirect
PyPImcp-types2.3.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPInumpy2.5.3indirect
PyPIopenapi-pydantic0.6.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.45.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathable0.6.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpy-key-value-aio0.4.6indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.15.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.15.1indirect
PyPIpyperclip1.11.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.4indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrapidfuzz3.14.6indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrich-rst2.2.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIruff0.16.10indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.10indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.5.0indirect
PyPIstarlette1.7.0indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.4indirect
PyPIuncalled-for0.4.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.8.0indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.54.0indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.3.0indirect
PyPIwebsockets17.1indirect
PyPIwindows-mcp0.8.8indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 101 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.