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.

DimensionRoslyn CodeLens MCP ServerRoslyn-based semantic .NET/C# intelligence for AI agentsMartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS68 / 100 · C79 / 100 · B
Reliability9 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions14 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance14 / 2016 / 20
Documentation18 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience13 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • .NET/C# developers using MCP clients like Claude Code or VS Code
  • AI-assisted development workflows needing deep static analysis and safe refactoring
  • Teams maintaining large SDK-style .NET solutions
  • 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-.NET/C# codebases
  • Legacy non-SDK-style csproj projects (skipped with a warning)
  • Environments without the .NET 10 SDK (unless using Docker)
  • 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
  • Reads and analyzes .NET solutions and source files on disk
  • Tools like apply_code_action can write/modify source files (preview mode available)
  • Running Roslyn analyzer DLLs requires explicit trust via trust_solution
  • 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
  • Analyzer DLLs execute in-process; the trust model restricts them to NuGet global packages, the dotnet SDK dir, or solution bin/obj, but grant trust carefully
  • apply_code_action, rename_symbol, and change_signature modify source files directly; prefer preview mode first
  • The stdio server has read/write access to the loaded codebase
  • Solutions must be NuGet-restored before loading or reference resolution may fail
  • 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, VS Code, Visual StudioClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools670