Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 00:23 UTC

shigechika / mcp-stdio

Bidirectional stdio ↔ HTTP gateway for MCP servers — connect clients to remote servers or publish local servers

PythonMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#ai-agents#claude#oauth#sse#streamable-http#bearer-tokens#oauth2#mcp-client#mcp-gateway#mcp-server

shigechika/mcp-stdio holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (53/100). It was last updated 13 days 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

AIKAWA ShigechikaPersonal account
19 followers61 public repossince Apr 2010Nihon University

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
PyPImcp-stdio0.43.64,6897813 days agobridgeclaudegatewaymcpoauthproxyrelayssestdiostreamable-http

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

69Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 13 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 441 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year441
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push13
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 78 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 13 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count78
latest_release_tagv0.43.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release13
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

14Critical
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars8
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate
How it's scored
48.9/80Monthly downloads — 4,689 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmcp-stdio
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,689
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)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent
How it's scored
40.3/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
29.8/30PR acceptance — 359/362 decided PRs merged
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_prs359
open_issues3
closed_issues71
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d31
prs_decided_30d31
issue_closed_ratio0.959
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.4/25Owner reach — 19 followers of shigechika
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers19
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginshigechika
public_repos61
account_age_days6,000
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 13 days ago
20/20Version history — 78 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmcp-stdio
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — ruff.toml
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_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, claude, oauth, sse, streamable-http, bearer-tokens, oauth2, mcp-client, mcp-gateway, mcp-server
has_wikiyes
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?

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

65Good
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 — 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
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
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 30 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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_aggregate6.5
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
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_packages7
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 pypi:mcp-stdio@0.43.6 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 7 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 99 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes16,540

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — ruff.toml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 57 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.57
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

38Weak
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
37.9/55Manageable file sizes — 9/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes845,737
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files9

Key facts

8GitHub stars
1contributors
441commits, last 12 months
13days since last push
78releases
1bus factor
3open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'mcp-stdio' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for mcp-stdio carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 00:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIhttpx>=0.25.0pyproject.toml
All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIhttpx0.28.1direct
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.13.0indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIgoogle-api-core2.34.0indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth2.56.3indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-core2.6.1indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-firestore2.28.1indirect
PyPIgoogleapis-common-protos1.75.1indirect
PyPIgrpcio1.83.0indirect
PyPIgrpcio-status1.83.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpcore22.9.1indirect
PyPIhttpx22.9.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.26.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.9.1indirect
PyPImcp2.0.0indirect
PyPImcp-types2.0.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.44.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIproto-plus1.28.3indirect
PyPIprotobuf7.35.1indirect
PyPIpyasn10.6.4indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-httpx0.36.0indirect
PyPIpytest-timeout2.4.0indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.32indirect
PyPIpywin32312indirect
PyPIreferencing0.37.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.30.0indirect
PyPIrpds-py2026.6.3indirect
PyPIsse-starlette3.4.8indirect
PyPIstarlette1.6.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.52.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mcp-stdio@0.43.6 pulls in 7 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.

Related records

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

94zereight/gitlab-mcpFirst gitlab mcp for you, building togetherExceptional96PrefectHQ/fastmcp🚀 The fast, Pythonic way to build MCP servers and clients.Exceptional97modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdkThe official TypeScript SDK for Model Context Protocol servers and clientsExceptional99IBM/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.Exceptional96mcp-use/mcp-useThe fullstack MCP framework to develop MCP Apps for ChatGPT / Claude & MCP Servers for AI Agents.Exceptional97maximhq/bifrostFastest enterprise AI gateway (50x faster than LiteLLM) with adaptive load balancer, cluster mode, guardrails, 1000+ models support & <100 µs overhead at 5k RPS.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.