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.

DimensionNova3DCode-native 3D generation — assets are executable programs, not opaque meshes.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS46 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability8 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions10 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance11 / 2016 / 20
Documentation8 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience9 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Developers and AI agents needing programmatic interaction with 3D assets during creation
  • Projects requiring editable, animatable assets with clear part boundaries and high-fidelity geometry
  • Seamless workflow from text or image prompts to structured GLB output
  • 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
  • Non-technical users seeking simple opaque meshes
  • Projects requiring offline, local 3D generation without reliance on hosted services
  • Projects needing precise CAD solids (still based on Blender's mesh approach)
  • 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
  • Network access: communicates with the hosted generation backend to generate 3D assets
  • File system: ability to write generated GLBs and scripts to disk (depending on client)
  • 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
  • API key for hosted service could be leaked, leading to unauthorized use or charges
  • Generated content may inadvertently contain biased or inappropriate content as reflected in prompts or training data
  • Dependence on hosted service availability; outages can affect functionality
  • Generated scripts should be reviewed carefully before use in automated workflows to avoid unintended code execution
  • 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
Tools00