Documentation

MCP Registry Server

Publish and discover MCP servers via the official MCP Registry. Powered by HAPI MCP server.

Deep ReviewMCP Rank ReviewedHigh confidencemedium riskclaudecursorcodex

Score breakdown

Install + docs87

Maintenance83

Auth handling76

Client compatibility85

Real usefulness88

Safety signals75

Evidence history

Review snapshots show why the current score, confidence, and risk labels changed over time.

seed review

Date	Change	Score	Confidence	Risk
May 20, 2026	Initial MCP Rank review captured from the curated seed dataset. MCP Rank completed a deep review on 2026-05-20 using registry metadata, repository/API metadata, package or container provenance where available, capability-surface analysis, and rollout-risk notes. seed snapshot · reviewed	83	high	medium

Date

Change

Score

Confidence

Risk

May 20, 2026

Initial MCP Rank review captured from the curated seed dataset.

MCP Rank completed a deep review on 2026-05-20 using registry metadata, repository/API metadata, package or container provenance where available, capability-surface analysis, and rollout-risk notes.

seed snapshot · reviewed

high

medium

Evidence notes

MCP Rank completed a deep review on 2026-05-20 using registry metadata, repository/API metadata, package or container provenance where available, capability-surface analysis, and rollout-risk notes.

GitHub repository modelcontextprotocol/registry was reachable, highly visible, and active on 2026-05-19.

The registry use case is directly relevant to MCP discovery and source provenance.

Repository provenance is directly linkable for follow-up maintainer and activity checks.

A concrete provider endpoint or docs URL is available for rollout validation.

Best-fit use cases

Good fit for discovery workflows where a user needs to find MCP server records before separately evaluating trust.

Useful as a neutral reference point for MCP Rank because registry data and trust review should stay visibly separate.

Risk analysis

Medium risk is appropriate because registry search can influence install decisions even though it is not itself a high-privilege workspace connector.

The main user-safety risk is conflating discoverability with endorsement or security review.

MCP Rank should keep registry evidence as input data while separately requiring source review, deep review, or maintainer verification for trust claims.

Use-case examples

Evaluate MCP Registry Server source links before install.

Compare MCP Registry Server risk and confidence against reviewed alternatives.

Use MCP Registry Server only after validating its install path and permissions.

Review status

Deep Review with high confidence.

Leaderboards include only Deep Review entries or listings with explicit maintainer confirmation evidence. Source Reviewed and Install Tested pages remain visible for evaluation but are not ranked recommendations.

Install test

Command

Review provider documentation before install

Risk review

Deep Review means MCP Rank performed a stronger manual evidence and risk assessment; it is still not maintainer verification, legal advice, or a full security audit.

The listed endpoint is separate from the repository itself, so endpoint ownership and deployment path still need verification.

Registry search should not be mistaken for trust scoring.

Verify install behavior and requested permissions in a sandbox before team rollout.

Maintainer verification is still recommended before treating this as a default-safe tool.

Sources

GitHub repohttps://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry Provider MCP endpoint or docshttps://registry.run.mcp.com.ai/mcp Official MCP registryhttps://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/

Source trail: Official MCP registry, public repository, package, or provider endpoint review

Badges

Maintainers can share reviewed listing status for MCP Registry Server.

Weekly MCP trust report

Reviewed servers, risk notes, new indexed tools, and maintainer verification asks.