Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 05:59 UTC

letoribo / mcp-graphql-enhanced

A schema-first GraphQL MCP server that avoids the 1MB introspection limit via typeNames/typeDepth scoping — built for federated topologies.

TypeScriptMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryMCP serverhow this is determined

letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (27/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

letoriboPersonal account
12 followers50 public repossince Jul 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 publishTags
npm@letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced4.15.322,049789 days agomcpgraphqlllmclaude-desktopenhancedtool-callingmodel-context-protocolfederated-graphql

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 175 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_year175
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv4.15.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases5.6
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57.9/80Monthly downloads — 22,049 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads22,049
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.686
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8/25Owner reach — 12 followers of letoribo
24.4/25Track record — 50 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers12
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginletoribo
public_repos50
account_age_days4,814
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 npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 9 days ago
20/20Version history — 78 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

27At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, api-gateway, discord, federated-graphql, federation, graphql, graphql-gateway, knowledge-graph, llm-tools, mcp, mcp-server, model-context-protocol, neo4j, railway, schema-introspection, http-api
has_wikino
homepagehttps://glama.ai/mcp/servers/letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced
docs_sitehttps://glama.ai/mcp/servers/letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages113
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:@letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced@4.15.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 113 packages. 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.

45Weak · 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://glama.ai/llms.txt)
33.6/40Legible commit history — 63 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://glama.ai/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.63
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes43,725
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0
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

2GitHub stars
8contributors
175commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
0open 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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 05:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk^1.27.1package.json
npmgraphql^16.11.0package.json
npmyargs17.7.2package.json
npmzod3.25.30package.json
npmzod-to-json-schema3.24.5package.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

Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@letoribo/mcp-graphql-enhanced@4.15.3 pulls in 113 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 — npm.