- Reliability 4/20
- The supplied material covers only the server.json manifest and the README; there is no MCP server implementation source, tool definition, test suite, or CI artifact. The manifest itself declares only a remote and an auth header, not a tool list, so the startup path, init handshake, and behavioral match of declared tools cannot be verified. The tool names in the README are untrusted evidence. Under static calibration, lacking verifiable execution evidence and treating missing evidence as a deduction yields 4.
- Security and permissions 5/20
- No source is available to audit authentication logic, credential storage, least privilege, or data boundaries. The README claims OAuth 2.1, bearer keys, HMAC signatures, and SPF/DKIM/DMARC, but those are self-reported. The manifest shows an optional Authorization header but no server-side proof of how keys are scoped or validated. For side-effect MCP tools such as send_message and approve_review, no source-level confirmation or scoping mechanism is visible. No red-line issue is apparent, but absence of evidence cannot earn points, so the score is 5.
- Maintenance 8/20
- The repository is not archived, carries an Apache-2.0 license, and the README references a v1.5.0 release baseline, a security disclosure process, and release tags, indicating basic governance and versioning. However commit history, issue responsiveness, and dependency maintenance are absent from the supplied material; README claims and badges are not reliable evidence. Versioning exists, but independent evidence of sustained maintenance is missing, so the score is 8.
- Documentation 13/20
- The README is broad and layered: quickstart, concepts, API, MCP, CLI, SDK, deployment, security, data handling, FAQ, and concrete client config examples for Cursor and others. However the dedicated MCP server documentation (mcp/README.md) and the tool parameter reference were not supplied; troubleshooting and limitation details must be inferred from the README alone. Documentation is strong but has key gaps, so the score is 13.
- Setup experience 12/20
- The README provides a clear hosted setup path: point an MCP client at https://api.e2a.dev/mcp and use OAuth or a bearer key. Ready-to-paste commands/JSON for Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor are shown, and a Docker self-host path is documented. However the referenced mcp/README.md and the per-client config files under plugins/e2a/clients were not included, and there is no verifiable execution evidence. Static calibration caps setup at 15; given the uncertainty, the score is 12.