Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 02:41 UTC

GoogleChromeLabs / use-webmcp-tool

JavaScript · MDXApache-2.0★ 175 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗

GoogleChromeLabs/use-webmcp-tool holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (58/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GoogleChromeLabsOrganization

3,103 followers257 public repossince Sep 2017

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
npm	use-webmcp-tool	0.2.0	8,007	3	37 days ago	webmcp mcp react react-hook hooks model-context modelcontext ai agent

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

24At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

40Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 18 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18	Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully

Inputs used

commits_last_year	11
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	18
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak

How it's scored

36.3/60	Stars — 175 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	175
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

65Good

How it's scored

52/80	Monthly downloads — 8,007 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	use-webmcp-tool
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	8,007
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.545

Issue & PR responsiveness

38Weak

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
30/30	PR acceptance — 2/2 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	2
open_issues	2
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0
closed_unmerged_prs	0
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

80Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 3,103 followers of GoogleChromeLabs
25/25	Track record — 257 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	3,103
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	GoogleChromeLabs
public_repos	257
account_age_days	3,278

Package maintenance

92Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 37 days ago
12/20	Version history — 3 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	use-webmcp-tool
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

28At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

32At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	3.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	155
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 155 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.

17Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

14Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	12,468
source_files_sampled	4
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

175GitHub stars

3contributors

11commits, last 12 months

18days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

2open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

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.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10

3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 02:41 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 2/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 155

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 155 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@asamuzakjp/css-color	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/code-frame	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-identifier	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/runtime	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@csstools/color-helpers	`5.1.0`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-calc	`2.1.4`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-color-parser	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-parser-algorithms	`3.0.5`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-tokenizer	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openharmony-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm-eabi	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-x64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-arm64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-x64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-musleabihf	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-musl	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-musl	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-musl	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-s390x-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openbsd-x64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openharmony-arm64	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-ia32-msvc	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-gnu	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	@testing-library/dom	`10.4.1`	indirect
npm	@testing-library/react	`16.3.2`	indirect
npm	@types/aria-query	`5.0.4`	indirect
npm	@types/chai	`5.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/deep-eql	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/expect	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/mocker	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/pretty-format	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/runner	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/snapshot	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/spy	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	@vitest/utils	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	agent-base	`7.1.4`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	aria-query	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	assertion-error	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	cac	`6.7.14`	indirect
npm	chai	`5.3.3`	indirect
npm	check-error	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	cssstyle	`4.6.0`	indirect
npm	data-urls	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	decimal.js	`10.6.0`	indirect
npm	deep-eql	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	dequal	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	dom-accessibility-api	`0.5.16`	indirect
npm	entities	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.25.12`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	expect-type	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	html-encoding-sniffer	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	http-proxy-agent	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	https-proxy-agent	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	is-potential-custom-element-name	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`9.0.1`	indirect
npm	jsdom	`26.1.0`	indirect
npm	loupe	`3.2.1`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`10.4.3`	indirect
npm	lz-string	`1.5.0`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.16`	indirect
npm	nwsapi	`2.2.24`	indirect
npm	parse5	`7.3.0`	indirect
npm	pathe	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	pathval	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.5.19`	indirect
npm	pretty-format	`27.5.1`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	react	`19.2.7`	indirect
npm	react-dom	`19.2.7`	indirect
npm	react-is	`17.0.2`	indirect
npm	rollup	`4.62.2`	indirect
npm	rrweb-cssom	`0.8.0`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	saxes	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	scheduler	`0.27.0`	indirect
npm	siginfo	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	stackback	`0.0.2`	indirect
npm	std-env	`3.10.0`	indirect
npm	strip-literal	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	symbol-tree	`3.2.4`	indirect
npm	tinybench	`2.9.0`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	tinypool	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	tinyrainbow	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	tinyspy	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	tldts	`6.1.86`	indirect
npm	tldts-core	`6.1.86`	indirect
npm	tough-cookie	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	tr46	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	vite	`6.4.3`	indirect
npm	vite-node	`3.2.4`	indirect
npm	vitest	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	w3c-xmlserializer	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	whatwg-encoding	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-mimetype	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`14.2.0`	indirect
npm	why-is-node-running	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	ws	`8.21.1`	indirect
npm	xml-name-validator	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	xmlchars	`2.2.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 155 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
nanoid	`3.3.16`	indirect	high	1	`5.1.6`
postcss	`8.5.19`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.5.23`

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.

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 — npm.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records