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 RecommendedNotion MCPMCP100 Recommended
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.
  • Reading and updating explicitly shared Notion pages
  • Markdown-oriented page workflows
  • Teams able to create a dedicated least-privilege integration
Not ideal for
  • Users who need an MCP100-recommended recommendation today
  • Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
  • Whole-workspace access without page scoping
  • Stable local-server APIs with no migration monitoring
  • Workflows that only need occasional manual Notion lookup
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
  • Sensitive workspace content cannot be exposed to the connected model/client
  • You cannot create a dedicated read-only integration or restrict page access
  • You depend on removed pre-2.0 database tool names
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Asana · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Notion · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
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✓ Streamable HTTP
Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP
Codex✓ Streamable HTTP
VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP
Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP
OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationUse Asana's documented MCP-token and connected-user authorization path. The token is specific to the MCP server, while available actions remain bounded by the connected user's existing Asana permissions; OAuth-scope and revocation details should not be inferred beyond the reviewed publisher documentation.The supported hosted service uses OAuth. The documented local server uses NOTION_TOKEN or OPENAPI_MCP_HEADERS; HTTP transport has a separate bearer token and supports carefully configured per-request Notion token passthrough.
CostNo MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.The local server is MIT licensed. A Notion account and workspace plan are required, and Notion plan/API limits apply; hosted MCP-specific charges were not established in the reviewed materials.
PermissionsThe MCP token is specific to Asana's MCP server, but it does not provide per-tool OAuth scopes. Available MCP tools operate within the connected user's existing Asana permissions; any workspace restriction belongs to the documented app or distribution configuration rather than being intrinsic to every issued MCP token.Local access is limited by the Notion integration capabilities and pages connected to that integration. Read-only capability is available; write-capable tools can create or update workspace content. Local HTTP transport requires bearer authentication unless an explicitly unsafe flag disables it.
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.Page/database content accessible to the integration can be returned to the MCP client and model. The local server calls Notion APIs; hosted Notion MCP additionally processes requests through Notion's remote service.
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.
  • Hosted OAuth is actively supported and easier; the local repository warns it may be sunset.
  • Write capability enables useful edits but raises deletion, overwrite, and prompt-injection risk.
  • Version 2 changed database operations to data-source tools, requiring updates to hardcoded prompts.
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.Workspace content may be read or modified within the integration's reach. Use a dedicated integration, Read content only where possible, explicitly connect only needed pages, avoid unsafe HTTP auth disabling, and monitor hosted/local migration guidance.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-242026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →