Is mcp-pinecone safe to use?

mcp-pinecone scores 79/100 (grade B) on the Canopii Trust Index, and carries 1 confirmed security failure that caps its score: Repository not archived. It passes 12 of the 20 controls that apply to it.

What security issues does mcp-pinecone have?

mcp-pinecone fails 1 control: Repository not archived. Each failure on this page carries the evidence behind it — the file and line, dependency, or CVE that decided it.

How reliable is the security score for mcp-pinecone?

We could evaluate 81% of the controls that apply to mcp-pinecone. Scores are deterministic — the same source always produces the same score — and a partially-scannable server cannot present a high one, because confidence caps the result. The scanner is open source, so this score can be reproduced independently.

How was mcp-pinecone scored?

Its published source was scanned against a fixed catalog of weighted security controls covering code safety, committed secrets, dependency vulnerabilities, tool-description integrity, authentication and transport, and maintenance. A confirmed flaw caps the score outright regardless of what else passes. The full rubric is published.

mcp-pinecone MCP Server Security Report

sirmews/mcp-pinecone

Model Context Protocol server to allow for reading and writing from Pinecone. Rudimentary RAG

79B

Security Trust Score

Grade B · Moderate posture

Tier 1 · Public sourceHigh confidence · 81%latest vmain@5477b42 Repository

Declared MCP capabilities

ToolsResourcesPrompts

Run it securely

Host sirmews/mcp-pinecone in a governed environment — SSO in front, every tool call attributed and audited.

Are you the maintainer?

Verify with GitHub to get alerted whenever sirmews/mcp-pinecone changes score — and claim the badge for your README.

Claim this server

1 issue capping this score

lowRepository not archived — repository archived

The short answer

Is mcp-pinecone safe to use?: mcp-pinecone scores 79/100 (grade B) on the Canopii Trust Index, and carries 1 confirmed security failure that caps its score: Repository not archived. It passes 12 of the 20 controls that apply to it.
What security issues does mcp-pinecone have?: mcp-pinecone fails 1 control: Repository not archived. Each failure on this page carries the evidence behind it — the file and line, dependency, or CVE that decided it.
How reliable is the security score for mcp-pinecone?: We could evaluate 81% of the controls that apply to mcp-pinecone. Scores are deterministic — the same source always produces the same score — and a partially-scannable server cannot present a high one, because confidence caps the result. The scanner is open source, so this score can be reproduced independently.
How was mcp-pinecone scored?: Its published source was scanned against a fixed catalog of weighted security controls covering code safety, committed secrets, dependency vulnerabilities, tool-description integrity, authentication and transport, and maintenance. A confirmed flaw caps the score outright regardless of what else passes. The full rubric is published.

Reputation150stars34forks6open issues19mo agolast commit2yage

Security controlslatest scored version vmain@5477b42

Each control is evaluated deterministically with evidence. The score is earned from passing controls; a failed guard caps it.

Model–MCP Runtime Guardrails

Not checked
Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) Defensesguardno tools extracted
Tool/prompt/resource text is free of hidden instructions that could hijack the agent.
Not checked
Strict JSON Schema Enforcementno tool schemas found
Tool inputs are constrained (additionalProperties:false), so unexpected arguments can't be smuggled in.
Not checked
User-in-the-Loop / Approval Scopeguardno tools extracted
No over-broad or destructive tools (arbitrary shell, bulk-delete) that warrant human approval.
N/A
Tool Definition Integrityguardno prior version to diff
Every consecutive version pair is diffed for new injection markers or destructive scope — a risky diff anywhere in history is a rug-pull (fail, durable); benign description drift warns.

Application Security Checks

Fail
Repository not archivedguardrepository archived
Archived repositories will never be patched. How many servers fail this?
Fix: Unarchive and maintain, or migrate to a maintained fork.
Warn
No known-vulnerable dependencies7 of 34 runtime deps vulnerable; worst critical
Runtime dependencies (parsed from the lockfile) are scanned against OSV.dev for published CVEs. Advisory: flagged dependencies lower the score but don't hard-cap it, since transitive reachability is unproven.
[email protected] — GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj[email protected] — PYSEC-2026-348[email protected] — GHSA-65pc-fj4g-8rjx[email protected] — PYSEC-2026-215
Fix: Upgrade the flagged dependencies past their fixed versions.
Warn
Actively maintainedlikely abandoned — no push in 555d
Unmaintained servers don't receive security fixes.
Fix: Keep the repository active; respond to issues and ship updates.
Warn
Has a security policyno security policy
A SECURITY.md gives a private path to report vulnerabilities.
Fix: Add SECURITY.md with a disclosure contact and process.
Pass
No command-injection sinksguardno sinks found
Untrusted tool input reaching a shell yields remote code execution.
Pass
No dynamic code executionguardno sinks found
eval()/exec()/Function() on tool-derived strings allows arbitrary code execution.
Pass
No path traversalguardno sinks found
Naive path checks let tools read/write outside intended directories (EscapeRoute-class).
Pass
No SSRF sinksguardno sinks found
Fetching tool-supplied URLs can pivot into internal networks and metadata services.
Pass
No unsafe deserializationguardno sinks found
pickle/yaml.load/etc. on untrusted data can execute code.
Pass
No committed secretsguardno secrets found
Hardcoded keys/tokens in published source are live credentials an attacker can use.
Pass
Credentials sourced from environmentreads credentials from environment
Reading secrets from env/secret stores avoids hardcoding them.
Pass
Dependencies pinned (lockfile)lockfile present
A lockfile makes installs reproducible and resistant to silent dependency swaps.
Pass
Declares a licenseMIT
A clear license is required for legal enterprise use.
Pass
Adoption & popularityestablished adoption
A small, capped nudge from stars/downloads — widely-used servers get more eyes on bugs. It can never offset a real security failure.
Not checked
Signed releasesnot evaluated
Signed releases let consumers verify artifacts weren't tampered with.
N/A
No install/post-install scriptsguardno published package
install hooks run arbitrary code on every consumer at install time.
N/A
Package name not typosquattingguardno published package
Names mimicking popular packages are a common malware delivery vector.
N/A
Published with provenanceno published package
Build provenance attests the artifact was built from the claimed source by CI.
N/A
Established maintainerno published package
Brand-new / single anonymous maintainers raise takeover and malware risk.

Transport & Trust Model

Pass
Execution Sandboxingcontainerized
A container/sandbox image limits blast radius; a server that runs natively has full host access.
Pass
Network Exposureno bind-all detected
Binding 0.0.0.0 or exposing debug inspectors widens the attack surface.
N/A
Transport Encryption (TLS)guardno remote endpoints
Plaintext HTTP exposes traffic and bearer tokens to interception.
N/A
IAM / Authentication Scopingno remote endpoints
OAuth 2.1 / Protected Resource Metadata gates who can invoke tools.
N/A
Live Endpoint Reachablenot dynamically scanned
A dynamic scan connected to the declared remote endpoint and it responded — verified live, not a dead URL.
N/A
Authentication Enforced (live)not dynamically scanned
If the server declares auth is required, it must actually reject anonymous clients. Serving tools to unauthenticated callers is a real exposure.

Embed this score

Add the live badge to your README — it updates automatically on every rescan.

markdown

[![Canopii Trust Score](https://index.canopii.dev/api/badge/sirmews/mcp-pinecone)](https://index.canopii.dev/server/sirmews/mcp-pinecone)

html

<a href="https://index.canopii.dev/server/sirmews/mcp-pinecone"><img src="https://index.canopii.dev/api/badge/sirmews/mcp-pinecone" alt="Canopii Trust Score" /></a>

Versions

Version	Score	Status	Published
vmain@5477b42latest	79B	scored	1/31/2025

Wondering how this compares? The MCP Security Index tracks grade distribution, committed secrets, and missing authentication across the whole ecosystem, refreshed monthly.