Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-24 12:54 UTC

jonigl / mcp-client-for-ollama

Harness the power of local LLMs with this TUI MCP Client for Ollama. Featuring all core MCP primitives (tools, prompts, resources), agent mode, multi-server, model switching, streaming responses, human-in-the-loop, thinking mode, model params config, system prompts, and saved preferences.

PythonMIT★ 782 stars⑂ 111 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#ai#command-line-tool#mcp#mcp-client#mcp-server#open-source#model-context-protocol#ollama#local-llm#sse#stdio#streamable-http#linux#macos#windows#agentic-ai#mcp-prompts#mcp-resouces#mcp-tools#harness

jonigl/mcp-client-for-ollama holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jonathan Gastón LöwensternPersonal account
64 followers63 public repossince Jun 2013

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPImcp-client-for-ollama0.33.18,057621 day ago
PyPIollmcp0.33.17,013591 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence — 34/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 124 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year124
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year34

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 56 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~10.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv0.33.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases10.4
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

69Good
How it's scored
46.9/60Stars — 782 stars
17/25Forks — 111 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks111
stars782
watchers8
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

70Good
How it's scored
55.7/80Monthly downloads — 15,070 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmcp-client-for-ollama, ollmcp
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads15,070
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

19Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.963

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance — 171/224 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs171
open_issues9
closed_issues36
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs53
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13/25Owner reach — 64 followers of jonigl
25/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers64
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjonigl
public_repos63
account_age_days4,797
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 62 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmcp-client-for-ollama, ollmcp
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, command-line-tool, mcp, mcp-client, mcp-server, open-source, model-context-protocol, ollama, local-llm, sse, stdio, streamable-http, linux, macos, windows, agentic-ai, mcp-prompts, mcp-resouces, mcp-tools, harness
has_wikiyes
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?

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

63Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 8 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
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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_packages56
unassessed_packages1
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 56 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

42Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

42Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
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 — 12 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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 1/68 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes108,905
source_files_sampled68
oversized_source_files1

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

782GitHub stars
7contributors
124commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
56releases
1bus factor
9open 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:mcp-client-for-ollama@0.33.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 111 ⇿
0Stars
111Forks
49Releases

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.

02040608010012011032025-042025-122026-07
Major 0Minor 30Patch 19

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-24 12:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 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
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImcp-client-for-ollama==0.33.1cli-package/pyproject.toml
PyPIany-llm-sdk~=1.21.0pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.25,<1.29pyproject.toml
PyPIprompt-toolkit~=3.0.52pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=14.2.0,<14.3pyproject.toml
PyPItyper~=0.26.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 50 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIany-llm-sdk1.21.0direct
PyPImcp1.28.1direct
PyPImcp-client-for-ollama0.29.1direct
PyPImcp-client-for-ollama0.33.1direct
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.52direct
PyPIrich14.2.0direct
PyPItyper0.26.8direct
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanthropic0.116.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.1indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.6.17indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography49.0.0indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIdocstring-parser0.18.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.3indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjiter0.16.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIollama0.6.2indirect
PyPIopenai2.44.0indirect
PyPIopenresponses-types2.3.0.post1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.14.2indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.5indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.68.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.50.2indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 56 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 jonigl/mcp-client-for-ollama. Read them side by side →

96mcp-use/mcp-useThe fullstack MCP framework to develop MCP Apps for ChatGPT / Claude & MCP Servers for AI Agents.Exceptional96PrefectHQ/fastmcp🚀 The fast, Pythonic way to build MCP servers and clients.Exceptional95zereight/gitlab-mcpFirst gitlab mcp for you, building togetherExceptional99IBM/mcp-context-forgeAn AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.Exceptional99ag2ai/ag2AG2 (formerly AutoGen): The Open-Source AgentOS.Join us at: https://discord.gg/sNGSwQME3xExceptional99awslabs/mcpOpen source MCP Servers for AWSExceptional

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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