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 fieldCodeGraph MCPWatchlist candidateDocker MCP GatewayMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Exploring callers, callees, imports, dependencies, and change impact
  • Large multilingual repositories where graph relationships add value beyond text search
  • Teams wanting local code indexing without an external API key
  • Running multiple MCP servers behind one stdio connection
  • Isolating catalog MCP servers in containers with restricted privileges and resources
  • Centralizing server profiles, secrets, OAuth, logs, and call traces
Not ideal for
  • Small repositories adequately served by native code search
  • Memory-constrained environments that cannot support the default embedding model
  • Repositories whose source-derived indexes may not be persisted locally
  • Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint
  • Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run
Avoid when
  • Source code cannot be indexed into a local persistent database
  • The MCP process may start in an unintended working directory
  • Generated, private, or credential-bearing paths cannot be excluded
  • You cannot review every downstream MCP server and profile permission
  • The agent must not be able to discover or add tools dynamically
  • Container isolation is being treated as protection from an over-privileged downstream credential
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

CodeGraph AI · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Docker · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Aug 10, 2026

Package: Aug 10, 2026

Repo: Aug 13, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

61

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

1,529

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

30-day package downloads

5,470

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

No reliable download data
External adoption evidence
  • github: repository stars: 61Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
  • github: repository stars: 1,529Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
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
AuthenticationNone for the local stdio community server.The gateway handles downstream server credentials and OAuth flows. The client connects locally over stdio by running `docker mcp gateway run`, optionally with a named profile.
CostThe repository is Apache-2.0 licensed and the community server has no documented service fee. Local compute and storage apply, and separately offered CodeGraph Pro capabilities may be paid.The open-source gateway documents no standalone usage fee. Docker Desktop licensing, Docker AI Governance invite-only features, container infrastructure, downstream MCP services, and AI-client charges may apply.
PermissionsThe server reads and indexes the current working directory by default or explicit `--workspace` paths. Tools can query and reindex code, index Markdown, persist project memories, and generate architecture documentation. Exclusion flags and profiles narrow filesystem and tool reach.The gateway exposes the servers and tools included in the selected profile. It starts catalog servers in containers with restricted privileges, network access, and resource usage, injects configured secrets, and can support OAuth. Dynamic MCP can additionally expose tools that discover, add, configure, remove, and execute servers during a session.
Data handlingCode-derived graph data, embeddings, indexed documentation, and memories persist locally under the CodeGraph data directory. The default embedding model is downloaded on first run; built-in exclusions cover common build, credential, and secret-file paths but do not replace an explicit workspace review.Tool requests and results pass through the local gateway to downstream MCP containers or remote services. Docker documents built-in logging and call tracing. Credentials are managed and injected by the gateway; downstream servers can still receive data and reach networks allowed by their configuration.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Semantic graphs provide relationship-aware context but indexing consumes local CPU, memory, and storage.
  • Graph-only and narrow tool profiles reduce resource and context cost but remove semantic or broader tool capabilities.
  • Community features are open source, while additional Pro analysis and security capabilities are separately offered.
  • Gateway isolation improves lifecycle and credential management but adds Docker runtime complexity and local resource use.
  • The MCP Toolkit is documented as Beta, and Dynamic MCP is experimental.
  • The gateway reduces direct host privileges, but network access and injected credentials still let downstream servers affect external systems.
Risk contextThe main risks are indexing unintended source or sensitive files, persisting source-derived embeddings and memories, and exposing broad tools to the agent. Set an explicit workspace, add exclusions, start with a narrow profile or graph-only mode, and protect or remove local index data when no longer needed.Gateway safety is only as strong as the selected profile, catalog provenance, tool filters, network policy, and downstream credentials. Disable experimental Dynamic MCP unless required, use narrow profiles, verify signatures where available, inspect traces, and treat each downstream server as a separate trust decision. This review does not claim MCP100 execution testing.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-242026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →