Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-03 18:07 UTC

KittyCAD / mcp

An MCP server housing various Zoo built utilities

PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined

KittyCAD/mcp holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ZooOrganization
901 followers85 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIzoo_mcp0.18.35,642610 days agozoomcpkittycad3dmodelingserver

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 192 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year192
human_commit_share0.29
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year46

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 60 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count60
latest_release_tagv0.18.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases5.3

Community & Adoption

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

39Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

14Critical
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars8
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

62Moderate
How it's scored
50/80Monthly downloads — 5,642 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageszoo_mcp
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,642
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?

75Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.816

Issue & PR responsiveness

88Excellent
How it's scored
37/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance — 190/193 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs190
open_issues3
closed_issues22
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.88
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

94Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
21.2/25Owner reach — 901 followers of KittyCAD
23.7/25Track record — 85 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers901
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginKittyCAD
public_repos85
account_age_days1,949
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

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 — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageszoo_mcp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

82Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

77Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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_packages65
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 65 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 29 of 29 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,252

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

45Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 70 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.7

Code legibility for models

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
49.8/55Manageable file sizes — 2/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes81,708
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
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

8GitHub stars
7contributors
192commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
60releases
1bus factor
3open 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:zoo_mcp@0.18.3; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10
7.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 18:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIaiofiles<26.0pyproject.toml
PyPIkittycad>=1.4.0,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.27.1,<2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow<13.0pyproject.toml
PyPItrimesh<5.0pyproject.toml
PyPItruststore<1.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.12pyproject.toml
PyPIzoo-kcl>=0.3.174pyproject.toml
All dependencies 65

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiofiles25.1.0direct
PyPIkittycad1.4.0direct
PyPImcp1.28.1direct
PyPIpillow12.3.0direct
PyPItrimesh4.12.2direct
PyPItruststore0.10.4direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIzoo-kcl0.3.174direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.4.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIclick8.3.3indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography48.0.1indirect
PyPIdnspython2.8.0indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.3indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPInumpy2.4.4indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIphonenumbers9.0.30indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-extra-types2.11.1indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpymongo4.17.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-httpx0.36.2indirect
PyPIpytest-rerunfailures16.4indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.31indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.3indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPIty0.0.63indirect
PyPItyper0.25.1indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuv-build0.11.32indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.46.0indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
PyPIzoo-mcp0.18.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 65 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with KittyCAD/mcp. Read them side by side →

98googleapis/mcp-toolboxMCP Toolbox for Databases is an open source MCP server for databases.Exceptional95eval-hub/eval-hubExceptional97modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdkThe official TypeScript SDK for Model Context Protocol servers and clientsExceptional94pascalorg/editorCreate and share 3D architectural projects.Exceptional94dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcpMCP server for Dynatrace ObservabilityExceptional93likec4/likec4Visualize, collaborate, and evolve the software architecture with always actual and live diagrams from your codeExceptional

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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