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.

DimensionRootlyRootly MCP Server: Incident management, on-call scheduling, and intelligent analysisMartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS64 / 100 · C79 / 100 · B
Reliability9 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions13 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance12 / 2016 / 20
Documentation16 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience14 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • DevOps teams
  • SRE engineers
  • Incident response teams
  • On-call managers
  • Platform engineers
  • Development teams needing incident management
  • 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
  • Organizations requiring fully local deployment
  • Teams not using Rootly for incident management
  • Simple applications without need for real-time alerting and incident management
  • 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 Rootly API access
  • May need OAuth2 authentication or API token
  • May need write permissions for creating and updating incidents based on configuration
  • 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 token leakage risk
  • Dependency on Rootly service
  • Network connectivity issues may affect functionality
  • Large data requests may cause performance issues
  • 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 Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, CodexClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools1000