Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 14:21 UTC

appium / appium-mcp

Appium MCP on Steroids!

TypeScriptApache-2.0★ 470 stars⑂ 89 forkssince Jun 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryMCP serverCommand-line toolhow this is determined

appium/appium-mcp holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Security (62/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AppiumOrganization
1,314 followers111 public repossince Jan 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npmappium-mcp1.94.038,7052621 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.8/36Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 643 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year643
human_commit_share0.76
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year46

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.94.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases1.6
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?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.3/60Stars — 470 stars
16.2/25Forks — 89 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks89
stars470
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.2/80Monthly downloads — 38,705 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesappium-mcp
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads38,705
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled29
top_contributor_share0.45
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance — 349/433 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs349
open_issues10
closed_issues79
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio0.888
closed_unmerged_prs84
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
22.4/25Owner reach — 1,314 followers of appium
25/25Track record — 111 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,314
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginappium
public_repos111
account_age_days4,993

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 262 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesappium-mcp
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgoose, mcp, test-generator, mcp-appium, mcp-ios, mcp-mobile
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 23 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 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://opentelemetry.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 76 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://opentelemetry.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — examples/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 24 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsexamples/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.24
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/163 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes43,896
source_files_sampled163
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

470GitHub stars
29contributors
643commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
10open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index npm:appium-mcp@1.94.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 89 ⇿
0Stars
89Forks
99Releases

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.

0204060801008932025-062026-012026-09
Major 0Minor 21Patch 78

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 14:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 23 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 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@appium/support^7.2.6package.json
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk^1.22.0package.json
npm@wdio/logger^9.29.1package.json
npm@xmldom/xmldom^0.9.8package.json
npmappium-adb^16.0.0package.json
npmappium-ios-device^3.1.0package.json
npmappium-uiautomator2-driver^8.0.0package.json
npmappium-webdriveragent^16.0.0package.json
npmappium-xcuitest-driver^12.1.0package.json
npmfastmcp^4.0.0package.json
npmios-mobileprovision-finder^1.2.1package.json
npmlru-cache^11.5.0package.json
npmnode-simctl^9.1.0package.json
npmteen_process^4.2.1package.json
npmwebdriver^9.30.0package.json
npmxpath^0.0.34package.json
npmzod^4.3.6package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — npm.