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 fieldDembrandtShortlist candidateAsana MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Extract and compare design systems from websites for design-engineering workflows
  • Extract and compare design systems from websites for design-engineering workflows.
  • Read and manage Asana workspaces, tasks, projects, portfolios, and reports.
  • Teams already using Asana that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
Not ideal for
  • The tool drives a local browser against websites and may process third-party brand assets/content. Respect robots.txt and site terms; only analyze sites you own or have permission to inspect. Setting DEMBRANDT_KEY uploads snapshots to the Dembrandt cloud service.
  • Users who need an MCP100-recommended recommendation today
  • Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
Avoid when
  • The tool drives a local browser against websites and may process third-party brand assets/content. Respect robots.txt and site terms; only analyze sites you own or have permission to inspect. Setting DEMBRANDT_KEY uploads snapshots to the Dembrandt cloud service.
  • 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
Provenance
Provenance details

Community implementation

Dembrandt · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Asana · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
Shared repository stars

3,756

Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20

Not documented
Shared-package downloads / 30 days

17,948

shared-package downloads / 30 days (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20

Not documented
Client coverage
Client coverage detailsNot documented
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
AuthenticationNo credential is required for local extraction. `DEMBRANDT_KEY` is optional and enables cloud snapshot upload/comparison.Use 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.
CostNo separate MCP fee is documented for local open-source use; cloud-service pricing is not documented in the reviewed MCP guide.No MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.
PermissionsThe local MCP controls a browser against requested websites and can accept cookies/basic-auth/custom headers supplied by the user.The 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.
Data handlingWithout a Dembrandt key, extraction runs locally. With `DEMBRANDT_KEY`, each extraction is uploaded as a snapshot to Dembrandt's cloud service for comparison/scoring.Publisher-accessible account or application data may be returned to the MCP client and its selected model. Retention and subprocess behavior require candidate-specific review.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Shortlist evidence is sufficient for identity, setup and task value; authenticated runtime tool-schema measurement and exhaustive security certification remain out of scope.
  • 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.
Risk contextThe server can send authenticated browser requests to websites and may handle cookies/headers. It can also upload snapshots to Dembrandt cloud when the optional key is configured.Use a test workspace or non-production account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, explicit approval for mutations, and credential revocation after evaluation.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-10-192026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-10-202026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →