Evaluation report
Warningsgopeak · mcpc6c1a92· 3 months ago
Every check MetaHub ran on this artifact, grouped by area. Static checks run on the source at publish time; behavioral checks run the artifact in a sandbox and judge what it actually does.
Structural
5 passedRepository is reachable
https://github.com/HaD0Yun/Doyunha-Gopeak @ c6c1a92 — ★ 214 · JavaScript · MIT · last push 3 days ago
Manifest detected
kind=mcp slug=gopeak · source=package.json
Slug is URL-safe
"gopeak" matches /^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{0,62}$/
Slug is unique within kind
No collision found for mcp/gopeak
Version is semver
2.3.8
Documentation
5 passedDescription quality
20 words · 168 chars — "GoPeak — MCP server for trusted Godot 4 workflows with compact/dynamic tool prof…"
README is present and substantial
10,591 chars · 11 sections · 8 code blocks
Tags / topics declared
27 total — gopeak, godot, godot-engine, godot4, mcp, mcp-server (+21)
README has usage / example sections
found: Quick Start
Homepage / docs URL declared
https://github.com/HaD0Yun/Gopeak-godot-mcp#readme
Safety
2 passed1 warningDependencies: known vulnerabilitieswarn
1 high/critical advisory — [email protected] (HIGH: GHSA-96hv-2xvq-fx4p)
Update the affected packages, then re-publish. (`npm audit` shows the same data locally.)
LICENSE file at repo root
LICENSE
No sensitive files in the repo
scanned for .env, credentials.json, *.pem, .ssh/, AWS / GCP configs — none found
Kind-specific
5 passedMCP: launch path
bin: gopeak, godot-mcp
MCP: @modelcontextprotocol/sdk in dependencies
pinned at "^1.27.1"
MCP: SDK version pinned
pinned at "^1.27.1"
MCP: ESM package
"type": "module"
MCP: server surface
0 tools
Maintenance
2 passed1 warningTests detectedwarn
no test/tests/__tests__/spec/t/ dirs, no JVM src/test/, and no JS/TS/Python/Go/Ruby/Elixir test files
Add tests (even a smoke test). Consumers gauge maintenance quality by their presence.
Recent activity
last push 3 days ago
CI configuration detected
GitHub Actions (1 workflows)
Behavioral
This artifact hasn't produced behavioral results yet: the evaluation sandbox couldn't run it (it may need credentials we don't provide, or a build our environment doesn't support). That's a limitation of our environment, not a verdict on the artifact.