Field-by-field comparison

Compare the evidence before choosing an MCP.

Each signal stays separate, missing facts remain visible, and the column order follows your selection.

MCPs in this comparison

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Open canonical comparison link

Comparable alternatives

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence fieldAsana MCPMCP100 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Read and manage Asana workspaces, tasks, projects, portfolios, and reports.
  • Teams already using Asana that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
  • Scraping and extracting public web pages
  • Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows
  • Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
Not ideal for
  • Users who need an MCP100-selected recommendation today
  • Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
  • Simple known-page fetches that do not justify a paid API
  • Sites whose terms or access controls prohibit automated collection
  • Workflows requiring guaranteed freshness or extraction accuracy
Avoid when
  • The connected data or account cannot be safely exposed to the selected AI client
  • You cannot verify least-privilege access and review write-capable tool calls
  • You cannot govern which URLs the agent may access
  • The workflow may collect personal, confidential, copyrighted, or access-controlled content without review
  • Unexpected API-credit consumption is unacceptable
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Asana · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Firecrawl · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Aug 12, 2026

Package: Aug 12, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

7,234

GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

30-day package downloadsNo reliable download data

412,488

30-day package downloads · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

External adoption evidenceNot documented
  • github: repository stars: 7,234Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP
Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP
Codex✓ Streamable HTTP
VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP
Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP
OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationAuthentication follows the publisher's documented endpoint or local-server configuration. OAuth scopes, API-key handling, and revocation behavior remain review items.Cloud and local-package configurations use FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Official docs also show hosted MCP URLs containing the key; environment-variable or protected input handling is safer than embedding the key in a URL.
CostNo MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.MCP calls consume the account's standard Firecrawl API credits and rate limits. Search, crawl, batch, and agent operations can consume more resources than single-page scraping; current plan pricing applies.
PermissionsExact permissions and the read/write boundary have not yet completed MCP100 independent review; consult the linked publisher sources and use the narrowest available scope.The MCP can initiate outbound requests to user- or model-selected URLs and invoke Firecrawl scrape, search, crawl, map, extraction, batch, and research capabilities according to enabled tools and account limits.
Data handlingPublisher-accessible account or application data may be returned to the MCP client and its selected model. Retention and subprocess behavior require candidate-specific review.URLs, queries, extraction schemas, and retrieved page content are processed by the configured Firecrawl service. Cloud mode sends them to Firecrawl; self-hosted mode follows the operator's deployment and any configured model/provider dependencies.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • First-party provenance and a clear task improve confidence, but do not replace an independent permissions and usability review.
  • Client transport compatibility does not prove that authentication, scopes, failure handling, and every tool behave safely.
  • Broad scrape, crawl, search, and autonomous-agent tools are powerful but enlarge prompt-injection, compliance, and cost exposure.
  • Cloud mode is easy to configure; self-hosting adds operational burden.
  • Remote URL forms that embed an API key are convenient but can leak through configuration, logs, screenshots, or history.
Risk contextUse a test workspace or non-production account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, explicit approval for mutations, and credential revocation after evaluation.Main risks are prompt injection from untrusted pages, collection-policy violations, sensitive URL/query disclosure, API-key leakage, and agent-driven credit spend. Use URL allow-lists, low limits, human approval, and a dedicated low-budget key.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-242026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-07-30T19:00:00.000Z2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

Popularity, maintenance, fit, permissions, and client support are independent evidence fields.

Read the evidence method →