← Back to directory
COMPARE UP TO 4 SERVERS

Compare MCP servers

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

DimensionRLM Tools BSL MCP ServerToken-efficient analysis MCP server for 1C (BSL) codebasesMartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS60 / 100 · C79 / 100 · B
Reliability10 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions9 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance12 / 2016 / 20
Documentation16 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience13 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • 1C:Enterprise projects with CF, EDT, or MDO source formats
  • Large configurations with 20K+ files that cannot fit into a single session context
  • Deterministic codebase questions, e.g. finding an HTTP service and its methods or how a document posting routine works
  • Teams that want to save context and tokens and avoid maintaining RAG infrastructure
  • 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
  • Scenarios needing a complete dependency graph of all configuration objects (requires a pre-indexed RAG/graph MCP)
  • Semantic/embedding search over object descriptions
  • Vague, non-deterministic questions like 'how does budgeting work in ERP' or 'how do cellular warehouses work in UT', which need full RAG or a strong model to turn them into strict queries
  • Treating it as an official 1C product: it is not maintained by 1C
  • 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
  • Read 1C source directories (BSL files, XML/MDO descriptions, metadata)
  • Write and manage SQLite index files on the host
  • Read and modify the projects.json registry next to the server directory (mutating operations require a password)
  • Execute agent-submitted Python scripts inside a sandbox
  • Optional access to an LLM endpoint (OpenAI-compatible OpenRouter, Ollama, vLLM, or the Anthropic API), only when llm_query is configured
  • Optional use of Git on the host to read the source repository (enables git_search)
  • 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
  • Agent-submitted Python scripts are executed in a sandbox whose real strength determines the host's exposure surface
  • A .git directory in the sources automatically enables git grep full-text search over all files, which may surface 'raw' XML/MDO and text content developers did not expect to expose
  • When llm_query is configured, script content or code fragments may be sent to an external LLM endpoint
  • The registry password protects mutating operations to stop the AI acting without confirmation, but it is not strong encryption or isolation
  • Indexing is slow on HDDs or network shares, and indexes persist code content read from disk
  • 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, Kilo Code, Roo Code, CursorClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools60