Gcontext MCP Server

gcontext-mcp PyPI v0.3.3

Published by an unidentified publisher — no publish provenance and no public repository, so the publisher could not be verified and the source cannot be independently located.

gcontext connector — local MCP bridge: cloud structure, local secret values

Trust grade
B
88/100
Last scanned get badge →
Trust
B · 88/100
Adoption risk for you: the threat score, then adjusted down for blast radius, publisher verification and how much the scan could see. Deterministic; every point is auditable.
Capability
High
Blast radius if it went rogue — what the server’s tools could reach. Independent of trust.
Coverage
Source
How much the scan could actually inspect. Shallow coverage is stated, never hidden.
Share this Trust Score
𝕏 Share LinkedIn Reddit
B Why this grade threat 96 − adoption risk = 88/100

The grade answers one question — how safe is this server for you to adopt — so it is computed in two auditable stages. Nothing below is an opinion or an LLM's guess; every line is a real term the deterministic engine applied, and the same input always yields the same number.

1. Threat score — 100 − 3.6 = 96. What the published surface and source actually contain:

PointsWhat was foundCategory
−3.6 Near-miss of @upstash/context7-mcp MTC-SUP-005 supply-chain

2. Client adoption risk — 96 − 8 = 88. Three small, subtract-only factors that reflect your risk in adopting it — a clean scan proves less on a powerful, unverified or barely-inspectable package, so the grade says so plainly:

PointsAdoption-risk factor
−6 capability blast radius (high) — client exposure if the model is manipulated
−2 publisher verification (unlinked) — no provenance/repo link, but the shipped source was fully read

Capability observations and info notes are shown under Findings but never scored. Open any row's finding below for the file, line and evidence behind a deduction.

Findings 10

high Sensitive-source and external-sink co-existMTC-FLOW-004

Tools that read sensitive data ([tool_read_file]) and tools that can send data out ([tool_run_script, tool_run_shell]) are exposed together. An agent can move private data to the sink.

Evidence: sources [tool_read_file] → sinks [tool_run_script, tool_run_shell]

Fix: Keep secret-reading and egress capabilities on separate, separately-approved servers.

Location: flow tool_read_file → tool_run_script

high Tool "tool_run_script" exposes command/code executionMTC-CAP-001

Tool "tool_run_script" appears to run shell commands or evaluate code (keyword "run_script" in tool name). Arbitrary execution driven by model input is one of the most dangerous MCP capabilities; combined with any untrusted input it becomes RCE.

Fix: Sandbox execution, allowlist commands/arguments, and never pass model output to a shell unescaped.

Location: tool tool_run_script

high Tool "tool_run_shell" exposes command/code executionMTC-CAP-001

Tool "tool_run_shell" appears to run shell commands or evaluate code (keyword "shell" in tool name). Arbitrary execution driven by model input is one of the most dangerous MCP capabilities; combined with any untrusted input it becomes RCE.

Fix: Sandbox execution, allowlist commands/arguments, and never pass model output to a shell unescaped.

Location: tool tool_run_shell

high Shell/command execution in server code (server.py)MTC-SRC-002

In the server's implementation (`server.py:179`): Spawning a shell/process is command-execution capability; with unsanitized tool input it is command injection / RCE. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.

Evidence: _sec(*args): return subprocess.run([_SECURITY, *args], capture_output=True, text=True) def _sec_read(name): """

Fix: Review this call path: confirm it never receives unsanitized tool input, constrain it, or remove it. Treat a server whose code reaches these sinks as high-capability regardless of what its tools claim.

Location: server server.py

medium Tool "tool_write_file" can modify the filesystemMTC-CAP-002

Tool "tool_write_file" can write, overwrite or delete files (keyword "write_file" in tool name). Verify it is scoped to a safe directory.

Fix: Constrain file operations to an explicit, non-sensitive root; reject path traversal.

Location: tool tool_write_file

medium Near-miss of @upstash/context7-mcp (edit distance 2)MTC-SUP-005

"gcontext-mcp" is edit-distance 2 from the high-traffic package "@upstash/context7-mcp". Verify this is the intended package.

Fix: Confirm you meant "@upstash/context7-mcp". Install packages only from their documented, official name.

Location: package gcontext-mcp

low Mutating tool "tool_write_file" declares no destructiveHintMTC-CAP-005

Tool "tool_write_file" can mutate/egress but declares no destructiveHint. Clients that don't default to spec-safe behavior may not prompt before running it.

Fix: Declare accurate annotations, and gate destructive tools on user confirmation regardless.

Location: tool tool_write_file

low Mutating tool "tool_run_script" declares no destructiveHintMTC-CAP-005

Tool "tool_run_script" can mutate/egress but declares no destructiveHint. Clients that don't default to spec-safe behavior may not prompt before running it.

Fix: Declare accurate annotations, and gate destructive tools on user confirmation regardless.

Location: tool tool_run_script

low Mutating tool "tool_run_shell" declares no destructiveHintMTC-CAP-005

Tool "tool_run_shell" can mutate/egress but declares no destructiveHint. Clients that don't default to spec-safe behavior may not prompt before running it.

Fix: Declare accurate annotations, and gate destructive tools on user confirmation regardless.

Location: tool tool_run_shell

low Shell/command execution in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_journey.py)MTC-SRC-002

In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_journey.py:38`): Spawning a shell/process is command-execution capability; with unsanitized tool input it is command injection / RCE. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.

Evidence: ON_SECRET": ""} cloud = subprocess.Popen(["uv", "run", "--group", "dev", "python", "cloud_api.py"],

Fix: Review this call path: confirm it never receives unsanitized tool input, constrain it, or remove it. Treat a server whose code reaches these sinks as high-capability regardless of what its tools claim.

Location: server tests/test_journey.py

Tools 12

Each tool and what it can reach — statically extracted from the published source.

  • tool_read_filereads sensitive data
  • tool_run_scriptruns code / shell
  • tool_run_shellruns code / shell
  • tool_write_filewrites files
  • tool_deleteno sensitive capability
  • tool_globno sensitive capability
  • tool_grepno sensitive capability
  • tool_list_dirno sensitive capability
  • tool_overviewno sensitive capability
  • tool_read_manyno sensitive capability
Show 2 more tools ↓
  • tool_secretsno sensitive capability
  • tool_setup_secretsno sensitive capability

Toxic flows 1

Cross-tool combinations that form a data-exfiltration primitive (untrusted input → sensitive source → external sink).

What this scan could not see

Versions 1

Scan history per published version. The engine is deterministic — the same version always yields the same score, so a changed score means the package itself changed.

VersionScoreFindingsEngineScanned
v0.3.3 latest B 88/100 10 1.13.0 2026-08-25

Embed this score

Show this server's live Trust Score in your README, docs or website. The badge is served straight from the registry and updates automatically after every rescan — no API key needed. It links back to this page, so anyone who sees the grade can also read the findings behind it instead of taking a number on faith.

MCP Trust Score: B · 88/100
Markdown (GitHub README)
[![MCP Trust Score](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/gcontext-mcp/badge.svg)](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/gcontext-mcp)
HTML
<a href="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/gcontext-mcp"><img src="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/gcontext-mcp/badge.svg" alt="MCP Trust Score" height="20"></a>
Prefer shields.io styling? Point it at https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/gcontext-mcp/badge.json via https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=…

Verify this score yourself

The score above is reproducible: the same package version always yields the same result. Run it locally or over the free API — no account, no LLM, fully deterministic.

npx mcptrustchecker scan gcontext-mcp --online --registry pypi

Use the free API → How scoring works

More in Security & Testing