CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Software System Performance and ReliabilityDistributed systems and fault toleranceBlockchain Technology Applications and Security

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Measurement Study of Model Context Protocol Ecosystem

Open access
Guo, Hechuan, Hao, Yongle, Zhang, Yue, Xu, Minghui, Lv, Peizhuo, Chen, Jiezhi, Cheng, Xiuzhen·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2509.25292arXiv 2509.25292
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has been proposed as a unifying standard for connecting large language models (LLMs) with external tools and resources, promising the same role for AI integration that HTTP and USB played for the Web and peripherals. Yet, despite rapid adoption and hype, its trajectory remains uncertain. Are MCP marketplaces truly growing, or merely inflated by placeholders and abandoned prototypes? Are servers secure and privacy-preserving, or do they expose users to systemic risks? And do clients converge on standardized protocols, or remain fragmented across competing designs? In this paper, we present the first large-scale empirical study of the MCP ecosystem. We design and implement MCPCrawler, a systematic measurement framework that collects and normalizes data from six major markets. Over a 14-day campaign, MCPCrawler aggregated 17,630 raw entries, of which 8,401 valid projects (8,060 servers and 341 clients) were analyzed. Our results reveal that more than half of listed projects are invalid or low-value, that servers face structural risks including dependency monocultures and uneven maintenance, and that clients exhibit a transitional phase in protocol and connection patterns. Together, these findings provide the first evidence-based view of the MCP ecosystem, its risks, and its future trajectory.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2509.25292

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [4][4] C. Li, X. Hu, M. Xu, K. Li, Y. Zhang, and X. Cheng, 'Can large language models be trusted paper reviewers? a feasibility study,' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17311 - · arXiv
  2. [6][6] R. T. Fielding, 'Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures,' Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 2000, accessed: 2025-09-24. [Online]. Available: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm -
  3. [5][5] Z. Li, K. Li, B. Ma, M. Xu, Y. Zhang, and X. Cheng, 'We urgently need privilege management in mcp: A measurement of api usage in mcp ecosystems,' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06250 - · arXiv
  4. [11][11] F. Tajwar, A. Singh, A. Sharma, R. Rafailov, J. Schneider, T. Xie, S. Ermon, C. Finn, and A. Kumar, 'Preference fine-tuning of llms should leverage suboptimal, on-policy data,' in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024. -
  5. [13][13] A. Singh, A. Ehtesham, S. Kumar, and T. T. Khoei, 'A survey of the model context protocol (mcp): Standardizing context to enhance large language models (llms),' Preprints , April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202504.0245.v1 - · DOI · Paper page
  6. [15][15] T. Cai, X. Wang, T. Ma, X. Chen, and D. Zhou, 'Large language models as tool makers,' 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17126 - · arXiv
  7. [19][19] U. Iqbal, T. Kohno, and F. Roesner, LLM Platform Security: Applying a Systematic Evaluation Framework to OpenAI's ChatGPT Plugins . AAAI Press, 2025, p. 611-623. -
  8. [18][18] Y. Qin, S. Hu, Y. Lin, W. Chen, N. Ding, G. Cui, Z. Zeng, X. Zhou, Y. Huang, C. Xiao, C. Han, Y. R. Fung, Y. Su, H. Wang, C. Qian, R. Tian, K. Zhu, S. Liang, X. Shen, B. Xu, Z. Zhang, Y. Ye, B. Li, Z. Tang, J. Yi, Y. Zhu, Z. Dai, L. Yan, X. Cong, Y. Lu, W. Zhao, Y. Huang, J. Yan, X. Han, X. Sun, D. Li, J. Phang, C. Yang, T. Wu, H. Ji, G. Li, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, 'Tool learning with foundation models,' ACM Comput. Surv. , vol. 57, no. 4, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3704435 - · DOI
  9. [20][20] R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, M. von Arx et al. , 'On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,' arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 , 2021, comprehensive survey of foundation models. Accessed: 2025-09-25. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258 - · arXiv
  10. [22][22] T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dessí, R. Raileanu, M. Lomeli, E. Hambro, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom, 'Toolformer: language models can teach themselves to use tools,' in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , ser. NIPS '23. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2023. -
  11. [24][24] X. Liu, H. Yu, H. Zhang, Y. Xu, X. Lei, H. Lai, Y. Gu, H. Ding, K. Men, K. Yang, S. Zhang, X. Deng, A. Zeng, Z. Du, C. Zhang, S. Shen, T. Zhang, Y. Su, H. Sun, M. Huang, Y. Dong, and J. Tang, 'Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents,' 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03688 - · arXiv
  12. [26][26] A. B. Hassouna, H. Chaari, and I. Belhaj, 'Llm-agent-umf: Llm-based agent unified modeling framework for seamless integration of multi active/passive core-agents,' 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11393 - · arXiv
  13. [28][28] X. Li, S. Wang, S. Zeng, Y. Wu, and Y. Yang, 'A survey on llm-based multi-agent systems: workflow, infrastructure, and challenges,' Vicinagearth , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 9, 2024. -
  14. [29][29] R. Buyya, C. S. Yeo, and S. Venugopal, 'Market-oriented cloud computing: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities,' in 2008 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications , 2008, pp. 5-13. -
  15. [30][30] B. Javed, P. Bloodsworth, R. U. Rasool, K. Munir, and O. Rana, 'Cloud market maker: An automated dynamic pricing marketplace for cloud users,' Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 54, pp. 52-67, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X15002058 -
  16. [31][31] E. Onagh and M. Nayebi, 'Extension decisions in open source software ecosystem,' Journal of Systems and Software , vol. 230, p. 112552, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121225002213 -
  17. [33][33] I. Milev, M. Balunović, M. Baader, and M. Vechev, 'Toolfuzz - automated agent tool testing,' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04479 - · arXiv
  18. [32][32] M. Zimmermann, C.-A. Staicu, C. Tenny, and M. Pradel, 'Smallworld with high risks: a study of security threats in the npm ecosystem,' in Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium , ser. SEC'19. USA: USENIX Association, 2019, p. 995-1010. -
  19. [36][36] Y. Zhang, B. Turkistani, A. Y. Yang, C. Zuo, and Z. Lin, 'A measurement study of wechat mini-apps,' Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. , vol. 5, no. 2, Jun. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3460081 - · DOI
  20. [35][35] N. Viennot, E. Garcia, and J. Nieh, 'A measurement study of google play,' SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. , vol. 42, no. 1, p. 221-233, Jun. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2637364.2592003 - · DOI
  21. [37][37] A. Ehtesham, A. Singh, G. K. Gupta, and S. Kumar, 'A survey of agent interoperability protocols: Model context protocol (mcp), agent communication protocol (acp), agent-to-agent protocol (a2a), and agent network protocol (anp),' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02279 - · arXiv
  22. [38][38] J. Lin, M. Sayagh, and A. E. Hassan, 'The co-evolution of the wordpress platform and its plugins,' ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. , vol. 32, no. 1, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3533700 - · DOI
  23. [42][42] K. Mei, X. Zhu, W. Xu, W. Hua, M. Jin, Z. Li, S. Xu, R. Ye, Y. Ge, and Y. Zhang, 'Aios: Llm agent operating system,' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16971 - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guo, H., Hao, Y., Zhang, Y., Xu, M., Lv, P., Chen, J., & Cheng, X.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2509.25292
arXiv
2509.25292
OpenAlex
W4415947096
Cited by
2
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Beijing Nova Program
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Keywords
Model Context Protocol, server reliability, behavioral telemetry, continuous monitoring, conformance testing, Dominion Observatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review