M
MCP Directory CURATED DIRECTORY
911 MCP servers indexed
中文
← Back to directory
COMPARE UP TO 4 SERVERS

Compare MCP servers

Compare scores, permissions, risks, and fit in one decision-focused table.

DimensionMCP ObservatoryCI-native security testing for MCP servers: attack simulation, schema drift detection, and health scoring.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS51 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability6 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions8 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance10 / 2016 / 20
Documentation14 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience13 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Development teams building custom MCP servers.
  • Security teams needing to validate MCP server security in the AI supply chain.
  • DevOps engineers looking for CI integration for MCP server testing.
  • Engineering teams scaling AI coding agents while controlling spend
  • Platform teams that need auditable, rollback-aware agent execution records
  • Organizations using multiple agents (Claude, Codex, Gemini) under one governed flow
Not for
  • Servers requiring interactive OAuth (like Google Drive) that need pre-authentication.
  • Servers using custom WebSocket transports (e.g., BrowserTools MCP) are not supported.
  • Performance benchmarking of MCP servers (use MCPBench).
  • Developers who just want a simple code-completion helper without run governance
  • Teams unwilling to accept local JSONL run records with HMAC signing
  • Environments without a supported adapter (Claude/Codex/Gemini CLIs, direct provider, or verifier-only)
Required permissions
  • Requires access to the local filesystem to read configs and write reports.
  • Can spawn subprocesses to launch MCP servers.
  • Can post GitHub comments and set commit statuses (when configured).
  • Can upload SARIF results to GitHub Code Scanning (when configured).
  • Read/write access to the configured repo root (writable scope restrictable via --allow-path/--deny-path)
  • Ability to invoke the chosen agent CLI (Claude/Codex/Gemini, etc.) and its underlying model account
  • Local disk writes for run records, receipts, and share outputs (share/run-receipt., etc.)
  • Execution of user-configured verifier commands (e.g. npm test)
Risks and side effects
  • May execute unsafe tool calls, but has an allowlist for base commands by default.
  • Requires network access to install npm packages and reach remote servers.
  • Generated reports may contain sensitive information; handle them carefully.
  • Verifier commands are executed; poorly chosen verifier commands carry security risk despite preflight policy checks
  • Cost and token figures may be estimates (labeled with provenance) and should not be treated as settled accounting
  • Receipt integrity must be verified before use as trustworthy evidence; missing rollback evidence is flagged as EVIDENCE_BOUNDARY
  • Policy defaults come from martin.config.yaml and can be overridden by CLI flags; misconfiguration can loosen safety boundaries
Supported clientsClaude DesktopClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools100