YellowMCP
YellowMCP Research

The State of MCP Reliability

April 2026

The first independent assessment of reliability, security, and maintenance across the MCP server ecosystem

Executive Summary

20,348
Servers Indexed
2,181
Remote Endpoints
actively monitored
19,088,204
Health Checks
since April 1
83/100
Avg Trust Score

Key Findings

30% of remote MCP endpoints are dead. Out of 2,181 remote-capable servers, 648 fail to respond — timeout, connection refused, or not found.

263 servers (12.1%) have zero authentication. Any agent can connect and execute tools without credentials.

51% have open CORS (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *), allowing cross-origin requests from any domain.

Finance scores lowest on trust despite handling the most sensitive data — a notable gap between risk and security posture.

Ecosystem Overview

YellowMCP indexes 20,348 MCP servers from the Official MCP Registry, Smithery, PulseMCP, mcpmonitoring.com, and community lists. Of these, 2,181 have remote endpoints that can be independently monitored.

Data Sources

mcpmonitoring
18,078
registry
1,607
smithery
422
awesome-list
125
pulsemcp
115
claimed
1

Category Distribution

dev-tools
14,662 servers
other
2,788 servers
data
1,199 servers
productivity
793 servers
media
465 servers
finance
227 servers
security
214 servers

Reliability Assessment

Server Status (2,181 remote endpoints)

526
Up (24.1%)
923
Reachable (42.3%)
84
Degraded (3.9%)
648
Down (29.7%)

30-Day Uptime Distribution

99%+ uptime
757
95-99%
368
90-95%
79
80-90%
152
Below 80%
825

Latency Distribution

<100ms
65
100-500ms
97
500-2000ms
1571
>2000ms
448

Top 10 Most Reliable Servers

#ServerCategoryUptimeLatencyTrust
1Netdata79,437dev-tools99.6%613ms100
2AWS Knowledge9,331dev-tools100.0%492ms100
3PostHog MCP Server35,203dev-tools99.6%601ms100
4MCP Registry Server6,966dev-tools99.0%574ms100
5ContextLattice121productivity100.0%408ms95
6edgar.tools SEC Intelligence2,413dev-tools100.0%616ms95
7ShipSwift2,323dev-tools99.4%590ms95
8com.monday/monday.com412dev-tools99.9%593ms100
9io.github.promplate/hmr17dev-tools100.0%378ms100
10Supabase2,766dev-tools99.6%643ms100

Security Intelligence

2,180 remote MCP servers scanned with 5 passive security checks: authentication, transport security, CORS policy, information leakage, and SSL/TLS certificate quality.

Trust Score Distribution

Excellent (90+)
1,142
Good (70-89)
535
Fair (50-69)
491
Poor/Critical (<50)
12

263 servers have zero authentication

12.1% of remote MCP servers respond with 2xx and no authentication required. Any agent can connect and execute tools without credentials. This is the #1 security concern in the ecosystem.

Authentication

OAuth/Bearer
634
Weak (static key)
190
No auth
263

SSL/TLS Certificates

Valid
1974
Expiring (<30d)
18
Invalid/Expired
14

Trust Score by Category

dev-tools
82.9/100
other
82.2/100
data
82.3/100
productivity
84/100
media
83.6/100
finance
80.1/100
security
79.9/100

Maintenance & Activity

0%
Committed in 30 days
365
Active in 90 days
100%
No commits in 30+ days

Of 1,206 remote servers with linked GitHub repositories, only 0% have committed code in the last 30 days. Abandoned MCP servers represent a growing reliability risk — they accumulate security vulnerabilities and drift from protocol updates.

Methodology

Health Monitoring

Every remote endpoint is checked via HTTP GET/SSE handshake every 5-15 minutes. We record status code, response latency, and error details. Servers are classified as up (2xx within 10s), degraded (slow or intermittent), reachable (401/403), or down (timeout/error).

Security Scanning

All checks are passive and non-intrusive. We assess authentication requirements, transport security (HTTPS), CORS headers, information leakage (server headers, error details), and SSL certificate validity. No penetration testing or active exploitation.

Trust Score

Starts at 100. Deductions: no authentication (-30), HTTP only (-25), invalid SSL (-20), expiring SSL (-10), weak auth (-10), error details exposed (-10), open CORS (-5), server headers exposed (-5), low uptime (-10 to -30). Range: 0-100.

Limitations

Uptime data reflects only the monitoring period (since April 1, 2026). Servers without remote endpoints cannot be health-checked. Security scans assess external posture only — internal architecture and code quality are not evaluated. Trust scores are not endorsements.

Recommendations

For developers choosing MCP servers

Check uptime history before depending on a server. Verify it requires authentication. Look at GitHub commit activity — a server with no commits in 90 days is a maintenance risk. Use YellowMCP's agent discovery tools to find reliable servers at runtime.

For MCP server operators

Claim your listing on YellowMCP to verify ownership. Add authentication — 13.8% of the ecosystem is wide open. Monitor your uptime and set up alerts. Embed a reliability badge in your README to signal quality.

For the ecosystem

The MCP ecosystem has a quality layer problem. Registries list servers but don't verify they work. Discovery tools don't assess security. The gap between “listed” and “production-ready” is where reliability intelligence fits.

Share this report

Stay updated on MCP reliability

Get the monthly State of MCP Reliability report and ecosystem insights.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.