kerlenton/mcpsnoop - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Wireshark for MCP. A transparent proxy that shows every real tool call between your AI client and your MCP servers, live in your terminal.

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 78/100

External PR Merge Rate: 91%

Response Time: 9h

First Timer Success: 80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is kerlenton/mcpsnoop welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

kerlenton/mcpsnoop has a recorded first-timer success rate of 80.0%. Repositories ranked S typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in kerlenton/mcpsnoop respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 8.8 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 78.2 C-Rank™ score (S Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 78.2 places kerlenton/mcpsnoop in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for kerlenton/mcpsnoop?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for kerlenton/mcpsnoop is 90.9%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in kerlenton/mcpsnoop?

kerlenton/mcpsnoop currently has 3 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

kerlenton
kerlenton/mcpsnoopS•Elite347
GitHub
Back to Explorer
kerlenton

kerlenton/mcpsnoop

347
InactiveS•Elite(78/100)Go

Wireshark for MCP. A transparent proxy that shows every real tool call between your AI client and your MCP servers, live in your terminal.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Quality Architect

Warmth Score
7.2/10
Patience Score
7.7/10
Nitpick Rate
35%

Balanced & professional review environment in kerlenton/mcpsnoop. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • •Run repository linter and code formatters locally before pushing
  • •Link relevant GitHub issue ID in PR description pre-flight checklist

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit unlinked PRs without referencing an existing issue
  • •Do not mix refactoring and feature logic into a single commit
  • •Do not ping maintainers repeatedly within 24 hours of opening
Response Velocity
8 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
90.9%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
80.0%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
6 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
90.9%
Merge Gauge
80.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe84/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for kerlenton/mcpsnoop
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/kerlenton/mcpsnoop)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/kerlenton/mcpsnoop?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Context A session log already holds every response the server gave, byte for byte. Nothing in the binary can play them back. internal/replay/replay.go:47 is the closest thing today and it goes the other way. func Replay(ctx context.Context, command []string, cwd, method string, params json.RawMessage, timeout time.Duration) (Result, error) It spawns the real server from the meta frame's command, handshakes, and sends one request. That needs the server binary, its credentials and its network, and it answers a single request rather than a session. internal/exporter/exporter.go:26-30 renders json, html, text, otlp and har, none of which anything can execute. cmd/mcpsnoop/main.go:311 registers all ten subcommands and none of them serves. $ mcpsnoop mock session.jsonl mcpsnoop: tracing "mock session.jsonl" (session session.jsonl-97045-15efbc7ed607) mcpsnoop: exec: "mock": executable file not found in $PATH $ echo $? 1 Separate tools exist for only this. mcp-recorder (https://github.com/dev

📅 Opened Aug 1, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Context The stream filter is the fastest way to get from a whole session down to the six frames that matter, and it is the one part of mcpsnoop that cannot leave the TUI. The grammar lives entirely in internal/tui, in filterEvents at internal/tui/model.go:1074 and matchToken at internal/tui/model.go:1097, and the result is only ever assigned back to the model in applyFilter at internal/tui/model.go:662. No command can reach it. newExportCmd declares its flags at cmd/mcpsnoop/main.go:512-517, newCheckCmd at cmd/mcpsnoop/check.go:141-146 and newOpenCmd at cmd/mcpsnoop/main.go:846-849, and none of the three has anything that narrows a session. $ mcpsnoop export trim2.jsonl --filter 'tool:echo' mcpsnoop: unknown flag: --filter $ mcpsnoop check trim2.jsonl --filter 'tool:echo' mcpsnoop: unknown flag: --filter The TUI cannot save its own filter either. exportCurrent at internal/tui/model.go:1282 calls exporter.Build(m.store, id) at internal/tui/model.go:1296, which takes the session by id a

📅 Opened Aug 1, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Context Elicitation is the one path in MCP where a human types data into a server. Under MRTR the question and the answer are no longer two halves of one JSON-RPC exchange, they are fields buried inside two different requests. The 2026-07-28 elicitation page is explicit that the request is "delivered inside InputRequiredResult.inputRequests" and the answer comes back "returned inside inputResponses on the retried request" (https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2026-07-28/client/elicitation). mcpsnoop already does the hard half of that. matchRetry at internal/store/store.go:1378 links a retry back to the operation it continues, Ingest applies the link at internal/store/store.go:493, and the TUI renders it as continues id N at internal/tui/view.go:790. What it never does is read either side of the exchange. parseInputRequired at internal/store/store.go:1289 opens every inputRequests entry and keeps exactly one field out of it, the method name. methods := make([]string, 0, len(r.I

📅 Opened Aug 1, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 75/100Contribute

Context A developer pointed at a remote MCP server sees a 401 then a run of 403s and has no way to tell from mcpsnoop whether the token has the wrong audience, is missing a scope, or expired. mcpsnoop sits in the one place where the challenge and the credential both pass, and today it treats the challenge as display text and never looks at the credential at all. The response side is captured. internal/proxy/http.go:251 reads WWW-Authenticate off every response into route.challenge (internal/proxy/http.go:89), and internal/proxy/frame.go:100-106 carries it as AuthChallenge, whose own comment calls it "the one response header worth keeping verbatim". Nothing reads it back except display. internal/tui/view.go:706-707 concatenates it onto a list row, internal/tui/view.go:1121-1122 prints it in the inspector, internal/exporter/exporter.go:810 copies it to the JSON export, internal/store/views.go:80-81 passes it through. A grep for insufficient_scope, resource_metadata, error_description or

📅 Opened Aug 1, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Context An agent run normally talks to several MCP servers at once. mcpsnoop records each one as its own session with nothing tying them together, so the question people actually have, what happened during this run, has no answer. Reproduction. One client process spawns three shims, initializes each, lists tools on each, then calls one tool on each. The client propagates the same W3C trace context on every request, which is what a client instrumented with OpenTelemetry does. $ ls "$MCPSNOOP_HOME"/sessions files-97144-a9c6e9771489.jsonl github-97145-5aad0ff61b2c.jsonl search-97146-bc2bed02c554.jsonl Everything the capture knows about where a session came from lives in its meta frame. $ head -1 "$MCPSNOOP_HOME"/sessions/files-97144-a9c6e9771489.jsonl {"session_id":"files-97144-a9c6e9771489","server_label":"files","seq":1, "ts":"2026-08-01T19:20:39.290898+03:00","direction":"meta","transport":"stdio", "raw":{"command":["python3","/tmp/server.py"],"cwd":"/Users/me/work"}} SessionMeta h

📅 Opened Aug 1, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 55/100Contribute
Looking for more Go beginner tasks?Explore Go GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for kerlenton/mcpsnoop

When evaluating whether to contribute to kerlenton/mcpsnoop, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of kerlenton/mcpsnoop acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 8 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 90.9% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to kerlenton/mcpsnoop

01

Is kerlenton/mcpsnoop welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

kerlenton/mcpsnoop has a recorded first-timer success rate of 80.0%. Repositories ranked Elite typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~8 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 78.2 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 78.2 places kerlenton/mcpsnoop in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for kerlenton/mcpsnoop?

The external pull request merge rate is 90.9%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in kerlenton/mcpsnoop?

Yes, kerlenton/mcpsnoop currently has 3 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for kerlenton/mcpsnoop are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.