Tently
NPM · @TENTLY/MCP
Tently, the AI PR reviewer for GitHub: agents check team decisions before they write code.
Available components
Last scanned (23 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of npm servers
Category Developer Tools
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security81
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects zod 3.25.76, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 101 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to tently-team/tently-mcp). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 18 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability75
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 402 tokens (~201/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +1
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 −5
- CVE-2023-54404 affects this package: high ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 23 Oct 26 +1
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed npm/@tently/mcp@0.1.4
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | tently-team/tently-mcp |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/tently-team/tently-mcp/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/tags/v0.1.4 |
| Rekor log index | 3282996561 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:b210662a9a9a5528fb03e779c0a0aa328be9fd979b81193ec41da1ea686b4f2e1f6a5ccce9ad1e9a8c308dbf3816c02ebde2c59fecc7abc302fa6bd6e |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 | CVE-2023-54404 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 101 packages
| Packages resolved | 101 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 30 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
query_impact_zone ~222
Compute the blast radius (callers/dependents) of a symbol using the local code graph, run on your working tree — source never leaves the machine. Call this BEFORE changing the signature or behavior of any shared or exported symbol, to see who breaks. CRITICAL: results are EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF. Recall is imperfect — an empty or small impact list is NOT proof the change is safe; callers bound via interfaces, dynamic dispatch, or re-exports are routinely missed. Corroborate a low result (grep + read) before concluding there is no blast radius. Heed the `boundaries` and `epistemic` fields.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | string | – | upstream = callers/dependents (default); downstream = dependencies. |
| file | string | – | Repo-relative file containing the symbol, to disambiguate a colliding name. |
| maxDepth | number | – | Max relationship depth to traverse (1-10). |
| symbol | string | yes | The symbol name to analyze (function, method, class, type). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_decisions ~180
Search the Tently decision store — the same ratified decisions the PR review gate enforces (architecture boundaries, code-shape conventions, process rules). Each hit is marked BLOCKING (violating it breaks something) or ADVISORY (violating it just makes the code worse). Call this BEFORE writing or changing code in an area to surface constraints and exemplars that apply, so you build with the grain instead of triggering a review finding later. Pass the paths you are about to touch to scope retrieval.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Max decisions to return (1-50, default server-side). |
| paths | array | – | Repo-relative paths or globs you are editing, to scope the search. |
| query | string | yes | What you are about to do, in natural language (e.g. "add a repository method that queries decisions"). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Tently MCP server?
Tently runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @tently/mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @tently/mcp
claude mcp add tently-team-tently-mcp -- npx -y @tently/mcp
What is the Tently MCP server?
Tently is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.tently-team/tently-mcp. Tently, the AI PR reviewer for GitHub: agents check team decisions before they write code. This page covers its npm package (@tently/mcp).
Is the Tently MCP server safe to use?
Tently scores 85 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 4 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. Its build provenance is signed and verified. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Tently MCP server expose?
Tently exposes 2 tools: search_decisions, query_impact_zone. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 402 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Tently MCP server still maintained?
Tently is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the Tently MCP server under?
Tently declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.