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.

DimensionOpenFlowKit MCP ServerLocal-first open-source diagramming tools for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf & other MCP clients.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS67 / 100 · C79 / 100 · B
Reliability7 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions16 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance16 / 2016 / 20
Documentation15 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience13 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Developers wanting to integrate AI-assisted diagramming into their workflow.
  • Teams that prioritize data privacy and prefer local tools.
  • Workflows that benefit from tight coupling between code and diagrams.
  • 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
  • Users needing real-time multi-user collaboration (collaboration is experimental and off by default).
  • Users wanting GIF export (currently only MP4 is supported).
  • Users needing a desktop application (not yet released).
  • 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
  • No API key required.
  • No network requests needed; all operations run locally.
  • May access local file system for codebase analysis.
  • 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
  • Early-stage software; may have bugs or changes in functionality.
  • Codebase analysis may be inaccurate; AI-generated diagrams may require manual review.
  • Local-first means data stays in the browser local storage; sharing requires exports or viewer links.
  • 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, Cursor, WindsurfClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools60