Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 00:48 UTC

taylorwilsdon / google_workspace_mcp

Control Gmail, Google Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms, Tasks, Search & Drive with AI - Comprehensive Google Workspace MCP Server & CLI Tool

PythonMIT★ 3,005 stars⑂ 935 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork serviceMCP serverhow this is determined

taylorwilsdon/google_workspace_mcp holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Taylor WilsdonPersonal account

305 followers36 public repossince Jan 2014@yelp

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	workspace-mcp	1.24.0	-	104	0 days ago	mcp google workspace llm ai claude model context protocol server

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36	Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,966 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,966
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	52

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 95 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~9.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	95
latest_release_tag	v1.24.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	9.7

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

88Excellent

How it's scored

56.4/60	Stars — 3,005 stars
24.8/25	Forks — 935 forks
6.5/15	Watchers — 16 watchers

Inputs used

forks	935
stars	3,005
watchers	16
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

57Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 96 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	96
top_contributor_share	0.83

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good

How it's scored

32.4/42	Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
21.8/30	PR acceptance — 405/558 decided PRs merged
7.4/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 8/14 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	405
open_issues	83
closed_issues	279
prs_merged_7d	13
prs_decided_7d	14
prs_merged_30d	35
prs_decided_30d	48
issue_closed_ratio	0.771
closed_unmerged_prs	153
first_time_authors_30d	11
first_time_prs_merged_30d	8
first_time_prs_decided_30d	14

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.9/25	Owner reach — 305 followers of taylorwilsdon
23.4/25	Track record — 36 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	305
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	taylorwilsdon
public_repos	36
account_age_days	4,581

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 104 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	workspace-mcp
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://workspacemcp.com
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ai, gmail, google-calendar, google-workspace, llm, llm-tools, mcp, mcp-server, google-chat, google-drive, google-sheets, model-context-protocol-server, google-docs, google-forms, google-tasks, gsuite, chatgpt, claude, claude-code, claude-desktop
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://workspacemcp.com
docs_site	https://workspacemcp.com
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

68Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	6.8

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	130
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 130 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

67Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/instructions/general.instructions.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40	Legible commit history — 41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.41
agent_instruction_files	.github/instructions/general.instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,977

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

47Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.1
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 8/184 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	149,151
source_files_sampled	184
oversized_source_files	8

Machine-readable interfaces

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20	MCP server
0/40	Runnable examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	—
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

3,005GitHub stars

96contributors

1,966commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

95releases

1bus factor

83open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 30 authors (cap 12)
deps.dev does not index pypi:workspace-mcp@1.24.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 935 ⇿

0Stars

935Forks

94Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 23Patch 70

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10

6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 00:47 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8	CI-Tests	7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 17

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	fastapi	`>=0.115.12`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastmcp	`>=3.4.7`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`>=2.168.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`>=0.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	google-auth-oauthlib	`>=1.2.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	httpx	`>=0.28.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`>=2.7.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	py-key-value-aio	`>=0.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyjwt	`>=2.12.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dotenv	`>=1.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	cryptography	`>=50.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	defusedxml	`>=0.7.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	email-validator	`>=2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pypdf	`>=6.15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pytz	`>=2026.1.post1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`>=3.0.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 130

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 113 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.0`	direct
PyPI	defusedxml	`0.7.1`	direct
PyPI	email-validator	`2.3.0`	direct
PyPI	fastapi	`0.135.3`	direct
PyPI	fastmcp	`3.4.7`	direct
PyPI	google-api-python-client	`2.194.0`	direct
PyPI	google-auth-httplib2	`0.3.1`	direct
PyPI	google-auth-oauthlib	`1.3.1`	direct
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	direct
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.0.0`	direct
PyPI	py-key-value-aio	`0.4.4`	direct
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.13.0`	direct
PyPI	pypdf	`6.15.0`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.2`	direct
PyPI	pytz	`2026.1.post1`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	direct
PyPI	aiofile	`3.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	authlib	`1.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	backports-asyncio-runner	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	beartype	`0.22.9`	indirect
PyPI	cachetools	`7.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	caio	`0.9.25`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.2.25`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cyclopts	`4.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	docstring-parser	`0.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.22.4`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastmcp-slim	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	google-api-core	`2.30.3`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth	`2.49.2`	indirect
PyPI	google-cloud-core	`2.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	google-cloud-storage	`3.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	google-crc32c	`1.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-resumable-media	`2.8.2`	indirect
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`1.74.0`	indirect
PyPI	griffelib	`2.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	grpcio	`1.83.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	httplib2	`0.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx-sse	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	joserfc	`1.6.8`	indirect
PyPI	jsonref	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-path	`0.4.5`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	mcp	`1.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	oauthlib	`3.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	openapi-pydantic	`0.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-common	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-grpc	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-proto	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`1.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-semantic-conventions	`0.65b0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.1`	indirect
PyPI	pathable	`0.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.9.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	proto-plus	`1.27.2`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.34.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`0.6.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1-modules	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-settings	`2.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyperclip	`1.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-asyncio	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	python-multipart	`0.0.32`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`311`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.33.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests-oauthlib	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich-rst	`1.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`0.30.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.15.22`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	sse-starlette	`3.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	starlette	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	uncalled-for	`0.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	uritemplate	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.44.0`	indirect
PyPI	valkey-glide	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	watchfiles	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`16.0`	indirect
PyPI	workspace-mcp	`1.24.0`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 130 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
click	`8.3.2`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records