2,005 Source-Resolution Gaps: What Happens When MCP Provenance Does Not Close
2,005 profiles fall into source-resolution gaps. Repository-not-found accounts for 1,290 rows and missing provenance metadata for 632, making provenance review a major adoption issue.
Terminology
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Public Registry | Inspected MCP candidates searchable in the public Registry |
| Profile evidence | Inspection-profile aggregates used to interpret public candidates in more depth |
| Review/action rows | Entries in WARN, NEED_REVIEW, RESTRICT, or BLOCK that require reasoned adoption review |
Lead
MCP configurations are often shared as short commands or URLs. If the repository, package, publisher, or implementation does not resolve cleanly, adoption should pause.
Key Findings
- 2,005 profiles fall into source-resolution gaps. Repository-not-found accounts for 1,290 rows and missing provenance metadata for 632, making provenance review a major adoption issue.
- The 20,629 public Registry entries and 11,627 profile-evidence rows answer different questions and should not be mixed casually.
- The observation is an adoption input, not a final approval for a specific environment.
- Counts are snapshot evidence, so adoption review should check the observation date before treating the number as current state.
Dataset
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Article date | 2026-05-08 |
| Public Registry snapshot | 20,629 entries, synced 2026-06-06T01:17:38.963Z |
| Detailed profile evidence | 11,627 rows, generated 2026-05-20/21 |
| Public disclosure level | Aggregates, distributions, anonymized observations, and operational interpretation |
Observed Metrics
| Metric | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Source resolution gap profiles | 2,005 | Candidate with unresolved provenance or implementation reachability |
| Repository not found | 1,290 | Candidate whose public repository did not resolve |
| Provenance metadata missing | 632 | Candidate missing provenance metadata |
What We Observed
MCP configurations are often shared as short commands or URLs. If the repository, package, publisher, or implementation does not resolve cleanly, adoption should pause. This lens matters because MCP servers are not just plugins; they are bundles of authority exposed to an AI agent.
Practical Reading
Review the actual distribution source, package, repository, and remote endpoint rather than trusting a display name. Keep unresolved candidates in review. Review should record execution location, destinations, data touched, and unresolved evidence, not only the server name or README.
Limits
- The evidence uses public aggregate data and anonymized observations, not internal detection mechanics.
- Counts are snapshot values and will change as the Registry updates.
- This is not a claim that any named MCP server is safe or unsafe.
Conclusion
Review the actual distribution source, package, repository, and remote endpoint rather than trusting a display name. Keep unresolved candidates in review. Keeping this evidence in the intake record makes the review repeatable across teams and deployments.
MCP Guard continuously turns public Registry and profile evidence into adoption-review signals for MCP security teams.