Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-30 21:30 UTC

tumf / mcp-shell-server

Secure MCP server for whitelisted shell command execution with stdin, argv pipelines, timeouts, and structured audit logging.

PythonMIT★ 189 stars⑂ 49 forkssince Dec 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined
#audit-log#command-whitelist#mcp#model-context-protocol#security#shell

tumf/mcp-shell-server holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

tumfPersonal account
108 followers256 public repossince Apr 2009@wakumo

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-shell-server1.1.95,9031715 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 15 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 140 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year140
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 15 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.1.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release15
mean_days_between_releases6.6
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

51Moderate
How it's scored
36.9/60Stars — 189 stars
14/25Forks — 49 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks49
stars189
watchers2
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.856

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
19.5/30PR acceptance — 26/40 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues0
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.6/25Owner reach — 108 followers of tumf
25/25Track record — 256 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers108
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintumf
public_repos256
account_age_days6,358
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 15 days ago
20/20Version history — 17 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmcp-shell-server
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaudit-log, command-whitelist, mcp, model-context-protocol, security, shell
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?

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

58Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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 5 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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
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_packages29
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-shell-server@1.1.9 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 29 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.9/40Legible commit history — 43 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.467
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 8 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/30 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes43,985
source_files_sampled30
oversized_source_files0

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

189GitHub stars
8contributors
140commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 49 ⇿
0Stars
49Forks
13Releases

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.

010203040504822024-122025-102026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 12

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-30 21:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 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 5 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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIh11>=0.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.28.1,<2pyproject.toml
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIh110.16.0direct
PyPImcp1.29.0direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.7.0indirect
PyPIattrs25.3.0indirect
PyPIblack26.3.1indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.8.30indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcfgv3.4.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.6.9indirect
PyPIcryptography48.0.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.3.9indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhttpx-sse0.4.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.3indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.0.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.25.1indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2025.4.1indirect
PyPImypy1.13.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.0.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.9.1indirect
PyPIpackaging24.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.0.1indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.11.7indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.33.2indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings2.10.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-cov6.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-env1.1.5indirect
PyPIpytest-mock3.14.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.31indirect
PyPIpytokens0.4.1indirect
PyPIpywin32311indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2indirect
PyPIreferencing0.36.2indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.27.1indirect
PyPIruff0.8.2indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPIsse-starlette2.1.3indirect
PyPIstarlette1.3.1indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.12.2indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.1indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.32.1indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:mcp-shell-server@1.1.9 pulls in 29 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 tumf/mcp-shell-server. Read them side by side →

99IBM/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.Exceptional99stacklok/toolhiveToolHive is an enterprise-grade platform for running and managing Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.Exceptional99stackloklabs/toolhiveToolHive is an enterprise-grade platform for running and managing Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.Exceptional95stacklok/toolhive-registry-serverDiscover, govern and control access to MCP servers and agent skills across your organizationExceptional94smart-mcp-proxy/mcpproxy-goSupercharge AI Agents, SafelyExceptional98intuitem/ciso-assistant-communityCISO Assistant is a one-stop-shop GRC platform for Risk Management, AppSec, Compliance & Audit, TPRM, BIA, Privacy, and Reporting. It supports 200+ global frameworks with automatic control mapping, including ISO 27001, NIST CSF, SOC 2, CIS, PCI DSS, NIS2, DORA, GDPR, HIPAA, CMMC, and more.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.