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 fieldContext7 MCPMCP100 SelectedDocker MCP GatewayMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Current library and API documentation inside coding agents
  • Read-only technical lookup with a small two-tool surface
  • Users who want remote or local npx connection options
  • 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
  • Private internal documentation not indexed by Context7
  • Guaranteed authoritative answers without checking the cited upstream docs
  • Offline-only development
  • Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint
  • Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run
Avoid when
  • Your policy prohibits sending formulated documentation queries to a hosted service
  • You require complete or guaranteed-correct community-contributed documentation
  • You cannot keep an API key out of shared configuration
  • 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

Upstash · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Docker · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Aug 14, 2026

Package: Aug 11, 2026

Repo: Aug 13, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

60,740

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

1,529

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

30-day package downloads

3,916,841

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

No reliable download data
External adoption evidence
  • github: repository stars: 60,740Exact 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✓ 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
AuthenticationRemote MCP accepts CONTEXT7_API_KEY as an HTTP header. The local package accepts --api-key. The CLI can use OAuth to generate an API key; unauthenticated documentation commands may have lower limits.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.
CostA free API key and free usage are documented, with higher-rate or team/enterprise offerings potentially requiring a paid plan. Applicable limits should be checked in the current Context7 dashboard.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 MCP surface resolves library identifiers and queries documentation. It does not require repository or filesystem write access for the documented hosted mode.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 handlingContext7 states that formulated queries are sent to its API while full prompts, source code, and conversation history are not transmitted; its tool descriptions instruct clients to remove secrets, personal data, and proprietary code.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
  • An API key is recommended for higher limits, adding account and secret management.
  • Context7 says it sends formulated queries rather than full prompts or source code, but queries still leave the client.
  • Community-contributed projects can be incomplete or inaccurate and should be checked against primary documentation.
  • 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 contextPrimary risks are query disclosure, stale or inaccurate indexed documentation, and accidental API-key exposure. Keep queries free of proprietary details and verify consequential advice against first-party library documentation.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 →
Compare MCPs | MCP100 Index