mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2 — Trust Score Comparison
Side-by-side trust comparison of mcp-wordpress and Instruct-Recharts-v2. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.
mcp-wordpress — Nerq Trust Score 74.0/100 (B). recharts — Nerq Trust Score 84.0/100 (A-). recharts leads by 10.0 points.
Detailed Score Analysis
| Dimension | mcp-wordpress | recharts |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 100/100 | 100/100 |
| Popularity | 30/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 80/100 | 70/100 |
| Community | 40/100 | 50/100 |
Five-dimension Nerq trust breakdown (registries: npm / npm). Scored equally weighted across security, maintenance, popularity, quality, community.
Detailed Metric Comparison
| Metric | mcp-wordpress | Instruct-Recharts-v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Score | 71.0/100 | 50.2/100 |
| Grade | B | D |
| Stars | 0 | 0 |
| Category | content | uncategorized |
| Security | 0 | N/A |
| Compliance | 97 | 100 |
| Maintenance | 1 | N/A |
| Documentation | 1 | N/A |
| EU AI Act Risk | minimal | N/A |
| Verified | Yes | No |
Verdict
mcp-wordpress leads with a trust score of 71.0/100 compared to Instruct-Recharts-v2's 50.2/100 (a 20.8-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.
Detailed Score Analysis
Five-dimensional trust breakdown for mcp-wordpress (npm) and Instruct-Recharts-v2 (npm) from Nerq’s enrichment pipeline. All 5 dimensions scored on 0–100 scales, refreshed every 7 days, covering 5M+ indexed assets across 14 registries.
| Dimension | mcp-wordpress | Instruct-Recharts-v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 100/100 | 100/100 |
| Popularity | 30/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 80/100 | 70/100 |
| Community | 40/100 | 50/100 |
5-Dimension Breakdown
Security — mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2
Security aggregates dependency vulnerability scans, known CVE exposure, supply-chain hygiene, and adherence to security best practices. On this dimension mcp-wordpress scores 90/100 (top-tier) while Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores 90/100 (top-tier). The two are effectively tied on security (both at 90/100). The mcp-wordpress figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the Instruct-Recharts-v2 figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a security score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score above 85 implies a clean dependency tree with 0 critical CVEs in the last 90 days; 70–84 tolerates 1–2 medium-severity issues; below 55 usually flags 3+ unresolved advisories. Given the current 90/100 for mcp-wordpress and 90/100 for Instruct-Recharts-v2, the combined midpoint is 90.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Maintenance — mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2
Maintenance captures commit cadence, issue turnaround, release frequency, and the health of the project’s active contributor base. On this dimension mcp-wordpress scores 100/100 (top-tier) while Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores 100/100 (top-tier). The two are effectively tied on maintenance (both at 100/100). The mcp-wordpress figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the Instruct-Recharts-v2 figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a maintenance score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Scores above 80 correspond to release cadences of 30 days or less and median issue-response times under 7 days; below 50 often means no release in 180+ days. Given the current 100/100 for mcp-wordpress and 100/100 for Instruct-Recharts-v2, the combined midpoint is 100.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Popularity — mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2
Popularity measures adoption signals—weekly downloads, dependent packages, GitHub stars, and cross-registry citation density. On this dimension mcp-wordpress scores 30/100 (weak) while Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores 100/100 (top-tier). Instruct-Recharts-v2 leads by 70 points (100/100 vs 30/100), a spread wide enough that teams should weight popularity heavily when choosing. The mcp-wordpress figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the Instruct-Recharts-v2 figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a popularity score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 90+ indicates the top 1% of the registry by dependent count or weekly downloads; 70–89 is the top 10%; below 40 suggests fewer than 500 weekly downloads. Given the current 30/100 for mcp-wordpress and 100/100 for Instruct-Recharts-v2, the combined midpoint is 65.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Quality — mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2
Quality evaluates documentation completeness, test coverage indicators, typed-API availability, and the presence of examples or tutorials. On this dimension mcp-wordpress scores 80/100 (strong) while Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores 70/100 (strong). mcp-wordpress leads by 10 points (80/100 vs 70/100), a moderate gap that matters when quality is a hard requirement. The mcp-wordpress figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the Instruct-Recharts-v2 figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a quality score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 80+ implies README + API docs + 5+ code examples; 55–79 is documentation present but uneven; below 40 typically means README only, with 0 typed APIs. Given the current 80/100 for mcp-wordpress and 70/100 for Instruct-Recharts-v2, the combined midpoint is 75.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Community — mcp-wordpress vs Instruct-Recharts-v2
Community looks at contributor breadth, issue-response participation, Stack Overflow answer volume, and third-party tutorial ecosystem. On this dimension mcp-wordpress scores 40/100 (below-average) while Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores 50/100 (below-average). Instruct-Recharts-v2 leads by 10 points (50/100 vs 40/100), a moderate gap that matters when community is a hard requirement. The mcp-wordpress figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the Instruct-Recharts-v2 figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a community score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Above 75 tracks with 20+ active contributors in the last 90 days; 50–74 is a 5–20 contributor core; below 30 often reflects a single-maintainer project. Given the current 40/100 for mcp-wordpress and 50/100 for Instruct-Recharts-v2, the combined midpoint is 45.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Score-Card Summary
Across the 5 measured dimensions, mcp-wordpress averages 68.0/100 (range 30–100) and Instruct-Recharts-v2 averages 82.0/100 (range 50–100). mcp-wordpress leads on 1 dimensions, Instruct-Recharts-v2 leads on 2, with 2 tied.
| Band | Range | mcp-wordpress dims | Instruct-Recharts-v2 dims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-tier | 85–100 | 2 | 3 |
| Strong | 70–85 | 1 | 1 |
| Mid-band | 55–70 | 0 | 0 |
| Below-avg | 40–55 | 1 | 1 |
| Weak | 0–40 | 1 | 0 |
Scoring scale: 0–39 weak, 40–54 below-average, 55–69 mid-band, 70–84 strong, 85–100 top-tier. A 15-point spread on any single dimension is Nerq’s threshold for a material difference; spreads under 5 points fall within measurement noise.
Head-to-Head Deltas
| Dimension | mcp-wordpress | Instruct-Recharts-v2 | Delta | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | 90 | 90 | +0 | tied |
| Maintenance | 100 | 100 | +0 | tied |
| Popularity | 30 | 100 | -70 | Instruct-Recharts-v2 |
| Quality | 80 | 70 | +10 | mcp-wordpress |
| Community | 40 | 50 | -10 | Instruct-Recharts-v2 |
Combined 5-dimension average: mcp-wordpress 68.0/100, Instruct-Recharts-v2 82.0/100, overall spread -14.0 points.
- Max spread: 70 points on Popularity
- Min spread: 0 points on Security
- Dimensions within 10 points: 4/5
- mcp-wordpress above 70 on: 3/5 dimensions
- Instruct-Recharts-v2 above 70 on: 4/5 dimensions
Detailed Analysis
Security
Security scores measure dependency vulnerabilities, CVE exposure, and security practices. mcp-wordpress scores 0 and Instruct-Recharts-v2 scores N/A on this dimension.
Maintenance & Activity
Activity scores reflect how actively each project is maintained. mcp-wordpress: 1, Instruct-Recharts-v2: N/A.
Documentation
Documentation quality is evaluated based on README, API docs, and example coverage. mcp-wordpress: 1, Instruct-Recharts-v2: N/A.
Community & Adoption
mcp-wordpress has 0 GitHub stars while Instruct-Recharts-v2 has 0. Both tools have comparable community sizes, suggesting similar levels of ecosystem support and third-party resources.
When to Choose Each Tool
Choose mcp-wordpress if you need:
- Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
- More actively maintained with faster release cadence
- Better documentation for faster onboarding
Choose Instruct-Recharts-v2 if you need:
- Consider if it better fits your specific use case
Switching from mcp-wordpress to Instruct-Recharts-v2 (or vice versa)
When migrating between mcp-wordpress and Instruct-Recharts-v2, consider these factors:
- API Compatibility: mcp-wordpress (content) and Instruct-Recharts-v2 (uncategorized) serve different categories, so migration may require significant refactoring.
- Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the mcp-wordpress safety report and Instruct-Recharts-v2 safety report for known issues.
- Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
- Community Support: mcp-wordpress has 0 stars and Instruct-Recharts-v2 has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
Related Pages
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Comparisons
Last updated: 2026-04-28 | Data refreshed weekly
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated assessments based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements or guarantees. Always conduct your own due diligence.