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-use InspectorAn inspector for testing and debugging MCP servers and apps.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS57 / 100 · C79 / 100 · B
Reliability8 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions9 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance13 / 2016 / 20
Documentation14 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience13 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • TypeScript or Python developers building MCP servers
  • Teams validating MCP App behavior
  • Users verifying server connections during development
  • 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
  • End users seeking business-data tools
  • Production scenarios requiring documented authentication, authorization, or operational guarantees
  • Users looking for ready-made business tools rather than development tooling
  • 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
  • The source does not specify required system permissions, account permissions, or data-access scope.
  • When connecting to an external server, actual permissions depend on the inspected MCP server.
  • 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
  • The source does not specify an authentication or authorization model for the Inspector.
  • Inspecting a server may expose the tools, resources, or debugging information provided by that server.
  • Connecting the Inspector to an untrusted server may introduce unknown risks.
  • 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 Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools00