Score8.5

Popularity35.0

Risknone

TierGold

Score breakdown

Usefulness9.0

Novelty9.0

Momentum7.0

Maturity7.4

Open-source/build8.4

Evidence8.0

Workflow potential10.0

Setup ease8.8

Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.

Why it matters

Useful for AI coding-agent power users (Claude Desktop / Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code / GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI / Codex app) who run multiple MCP servers and hit the context-bloat wall — eager registration of all N×M tools blows past the context window in seconds, and the agent wastes tokens re-reading tool descriptions it never uses; conduit sits between the client and every MCP server and

Where this stands now

tsouth89/conduit ranks #177 of 2770 tracked Radar items by composite score (8.5 against a section median of 4.9). The section currently carries 1659 Bronze, 645 Gold, 466 Silver. RepoRadar has retained observations for this record since 2026-06-25 (100 days in the current window). Signal extremes versus the section: momentum at the 72th percentile; novelty at the 93th percentile.

Who should use it

AI coding-agent power users (Claude Desktop / Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code / GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI / Codex app) who run multiple MCP servers and hit the context-bloat wall — eager registration of all N×M tools blows past the context window in seconds, and the agent wastes tokens re-reading tool descriptions it never uses Users who care about credential security — auth profiles are first-class, written to the OS keychain (macOS Keychain / Windows Credential Manager / Linux Secret Service via D-Bus) rather than plaintext, and the gateway forwards them to the underlying server at start Users who need per-server ACLs — allow/deny rules are ACL-style regexes against tool names (e.g. allow = ["^search", "^read_"], deny = ["^delete_", "^write_secrets"]) so a coding agent can be sandboxed to read-only on a per-server basis without dropping the server entirely Users who need sampling / elicitation control — the gateway decides per-server whether the underlying server is allowed to make sampling requests back into the host LLM (sampling = "off" | "local" | "remote") and whether the gateway should surface server-initiated elicit prompts to the user (elicitation = "off" | "auto-approve-low-risk" | "prompt") Security / observability teams — every call_tool request is appended to a structured audit log with server, agent request id, tool name, args (with secret-arg redaction), response status, and wall-clock duration Users who care about local trust boundary — no cloud relay, no telemetry, no central auth service, the gateway runs as a long-lived local process (systemd / launchd / Windows Service) Users who want a live dashboard — React + Vite UI at localhost:7575 for live tool search, recent calls, audit log review, and per-server config edits Evaluation: git clone && cd conduit && ./scripts/setup.sh && conduit serve then add the bundled stdio entry to Claude Desktop / Claude Code / Cursor / VS Code / Codex CLI / Codex app

Who should skip it

Skip tsouth89/conduit unless the captured evidence suggests it solves a problem you are actively working on.

About this signal

tsouth89/conduit is tracked by RepoRadar as an MCP server in the Radar section. First seen 2026-06-25; the source record was last checked on 2026-06-25. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and easy setup difficulty. tsouth89/conduit leads on workflow potential (10.0) and practical usefulness (9.0); its lowest signal is momentum (7.0), so factor that in before investing setup time. This page summarizes the public evidence on the linked source page and states where additional review is still needed.

How this item is evaluated

The tsouth89/conduit record combines a 8.5/10 composite score with separate popularity (35.0), risk (none), and setup (easy) signals. See the scoring methodology for the current weights and evidence definitions.

Questions worth asking before you adopt this

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

No inherent user-impacting risk is flagged from the captured evidence.

Evidence links

github.com

Closest alternatives / related signals

conduit tsouth89 mcp-gateway mcp-server mcp-router lazy-discovery meta-tools search-tools

Date	Score	Momentum	Stars	Risk	Verdict	Maintenance
2026-10-03	8.5	9.0	221	None	Try now	Active
2026-10-02	8.5	9.0	221	None	Try now	Active
2026-10-01	8.5	9.0	222	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-30	8.5	9.0	223	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-29	8.5	9.0	223	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-28	8.5	9.3	224	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-27	8.5	9.0	222	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-26	8.5	9.3	222	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-25	8.5	9.3	221	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-24	8.5	9.0	220	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-23	8.5	9.3	220	None	Try now	Active
2026-09-22	8.5	9.0	218	None	Try now	Active

tsouth89/conduit

Why it matters

Who should use it

Who should skip it

What RepoRadar actually verified

Verification sources

How this decision record is moving

Recent dated points

Why the record changed