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.

DimensionPare DenoStructured Deno runtime operations as typed JSON.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS39 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability4 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions5 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance14 / 2016 / 20
Documentation7 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience9 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Developers using Deno as their runtime who want reliable structured output for AI agents.
  • Agent integrations that need to reduce token usage and avoid parsing terminal text.
  • 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
  • Simple Deno interactions where structured output is not required.
  • Projects using other runtimes (e.g., Node.js).
  • 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
  • System permissions to execute Deno commands.
  • Access to files in the working directory (depending on the Deno commands run).
  • 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
  • Malicious or misconfigured Deno commands could cause system damage.
  • Exposing too many tools without proper filtering could increase attack surface.
  • 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, VS Code, Windsurf, Cline, Roo Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Zed, ContinueClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools00