Score breakdown
Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.
Why it matters
Useful for MCP authors, platform teams, and security-minded builders who want something more concrete than checklist advice when reviewing tool permissions, prompt-injection paths, and package risk around agent integrations.
Who should use it
Who should skip it
Pass on MCP-Audit/MCTS if its scope or audience does not match what your team is building right now.
About this signal
MCP-Audit/MCTS is tracked by RepoRadar as a security tool in the Agent Security section. It was first seen on 2026-06-28 and last updated on 2026-06-28. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and moderate setup difficulty. The standout signals for MCP-Audit/MCTS are workflow potential (9.9) and open-source/build quality (8.4), while momentum (5.0) trails — that balance shapes where it fits best. This page summarizes the evidence RepoRadar has captured from captured source metadata. The score, tier, risk label, and verdict on this page are never influenced by sponsorship, ads, or tips — they reflect only the usefulness, popularity, novelty, momentum, maturity, and evidence signals described in the RepoRadar methodology.
How this item is evaluated
RepoRadar assigned MCP-Audit/MCTS a composite score of 8.4 out of 10, placing it in the Gold tier. This score combines weighted sub-signals: usefulness (35%), novelty (18%), momentum (14%), maturity (10%), open-source/build quality (7%), evidence quality (6%), workflow potential (6%), and setup ease (4%). Popularity is tracked separately at 1.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'conditional' reflects inherent user-impacting hazards, not generic novelty. Items with no risk flag may still require normal code review before production use.
Putting this into practice? Read How to vet an AI agent or MCP server before you wire it in for the checklist behind this score.
Risk explanation
Live probing and fuzzing modes should stay on test servers or disposable sandboxes until you understand exactly which tools and integrations they exercise; The project is still labeled alpha, so teams should treat its scores as a strong audit signal rather than a substitute for manual review.