No red flags found in any of the 11 categories — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
by Flux159 · MCP Server · ★ 136
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
🔒 Is mcp-chat safe to install? View the security audit →
mcp-chat 🌐 Language English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | 日本語 | 한국어 | हिन्दी | ไทย | Français | Deutsch | Español | Italiano | Русский | <a href="https://openaitx.github.io/view.html?user=Flux159&project=mcp-chat&lang=
| Stars | 136 |
| Forks | 20 |
| Language | TypeScript |
| Category | MCP Server |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 75.0294473164153/100 |
| Open Issues | 3 |
| Last Updated | 2026-06-04 |
| Created | 2025-03-18 |
| Platforms | cli, mcp, node |
| Est. Tokens | ~17k |
Looking for a mcp-chat alternative? If you're comparing mcp-chat with other mcp server tools, these 2 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Explore other popular mcp server tools:
mcp-chat is Open Source Generic MCP Client for testing & evaluating mcp servers and agents. It is categorized as a MCP Server with 136 GitHub stars.
mcp-chat is primarily written in TypeScript. It covers topics such as ai, llm, mcp.
You can find installation instructions and usage details in the mcp-chat GitHub repository at github.com/Flux159/mcp-chat. The project has 136 stars and 20 forks, indicating an active community.
mcp-chat is released under the MIT license, making it free to use and modify according to the license terms.
The top alternatives to mcp-chat on Agent Skills Hub include vibe, wcgw. Each offers a different approach to the same problem space — compare them side-by-side by stars, quality score, and community activity.
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, covering 11 red-flag categories including credential harvesting, data exfiltration, and curl | sh installers. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: