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.

DimensionOPC UA MCP ServerOperate OPC UA through MCP for AI assistants.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS41 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability7 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions6 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance13 / 2016 / 20
Documentation8 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience7 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • OPC UA integration in industrial control, manufacturing, energy, and IoT systems
  • Developers who need AI assistants to access OPC UA client operations
  • Teams building OPC UA tools or applications on .NET
  • 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
  • Applications that do not use OPC UA
  • Deployments requiring documented tool identifiers or client configuration not present in the source
  • Environments requiring transport, authentication, or authorization details that the source does not specify
  • 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 target OPC UA server
  • Read/write, method-call, and subscription operations require the corresponding permissions granted by the target OPC UA server; the precise permission model is not specified
  • 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
  • Writing values or calling methods may change industrial-system or device state
  • Subscriptions and diagnostics may maintain connections or consume additional resources
  • The source does not specify authentication, authorization, or transport configuration; verify the target environment's security requirements before deployment
  • Repository metadata is NOASSERTION, while the project README and server manifest state MIT; confirm the applicable license before adoption
  • 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