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

Cogneecoda

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

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 RecommendedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 RecommendedContext7 MCPMCP100 RecommendedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 RecommendedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 RecommendedPlaywright MCPMCP100 Recommended

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	CogneeShortlist candidate	codaMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for	Teams that want persistent graph-based memory/knowledge retrieval across AI sessions and can govern stored data.	Collaborative document and structured-table workflows in Coda.
Not ideal for	Workloads that require stateless operation or cannot persist project/user information in a memory graph.	Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
Avoid when	Do not ingest sensitive data without understanding where the selected Cognee deployment stores graph/vector/content data and who can query it.	The connected identity is broader than the task requires Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP github:topoteretes · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP ecosystem:coda · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
Package downloads / 30 days	1,288 package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-10-21	No reliable download data
Shared repository stars	32,633 Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-21	Not documented
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Not documented	Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP Codex✓ Streamable HTTP VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	Cloud-backed configuration can use Cognee API key headers; self-hosted HTTP deployments can use documented Bearer-token/auth modes.	The official hosted endpoint supports OAuth 2 and personal access tokens.
Cost	Open-source/self-hosted infrastructure or Cognee cloud plan plus model/provider costs may apply.	The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
Permissions	Can ingest, persist, query and in some modes delete/manage memory datasets according to deployment credentials.	Coda document sharing, user permissions, admin controls, and OAuth or PAT scope determine access.
Data handling	Content supplied to Cognee can be persisted in graph/vector/storage backends; retention and tenant isolation depend on the deployment.	Authorized service data and tool results pass through the MCP server to the connected AI client. Review the publisher and client data policies before using sensitive files & knowledge information.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Promoted after strict re-audit: canonical identity and MCP-native/publisher-backed implementation are sufficiently evidenced, with real workflow value, usable documentation, understandable permissions, plausible maintenance, and no unresolved security veto. Still not strong enough for Recommended.	Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records.
Risk context	Persistent memory can retain sensitive project/user information beyond the current conversation.	Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records. Use a test environment where practical, least-privilege credentials, narrowly enabled tools, and explicit confirmation for mutations. MCP100 did not execute third-party server code during this documentation review.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-10-21	2026-07-30
Candidate evidence	2026-10-21T00:00:00Z	2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →