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

Docker MCP GatewayGitHub MCP

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

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 SelectedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 SelectedContext7 MCPMCP100 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 SelectedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	Docker MCP GatewayMCP100 Selected	GitHub MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	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	Repository, issue, pull-request, and code context Teams that can issue a narrowly scoped PAT or use the hosted OAuth flow Read-only GitHub investigation using restricted toolsets
Not ideal for	Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run	Git hosting outside GitHub Users unable to run Docker for the documented local configuration Workflows that need only a small amount of public repository context
Avoid when	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	You cannot restrict the token to the necessary repositories and scopes The agent must not receive private repository, issue, pull-request, or user data Your organization has not approved the OAuth app or PAT policy
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP Docker · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP GitHub · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Aug 13, 2026 Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 14, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	1,529 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	32,248 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
External adoption evidence	github: repository stars: 1,529Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗	github: repository stars: 32,248Exact 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✓ 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	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.	Hosted service supports OAuth; local stdio uses GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN. GitHub recommends minimum scopes, separate tokens, rotation, and environment-variable handling.
Cost	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.	The open-source server is MIT licensed. GitHub account, Copilot, Enterprise, Actions, API, or other product charges and limits may apply independently.
Permissions	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.	Access follows the authenticated GitHub identity and granted OAuth/PAT permissions. The server supports tool allow-lists, read-only mode, repository-oriented toolsets, and lockdown mode; write tools remain possible unless read-only mode is enabled.
Data handling	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.	Repository contents, issues, pull requests, users, actions, and other enabled GitHub API data may be returned to the MCP client. The local server passes requests to GitHub; the hosted server is operated by GitHub. Do not place PATs in committed configuration.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	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.	The default local toolsets include repositories, issues, pull requests, users, and context; limiting toolsets reduces capability and context size. Local Docker keeps the MCP process local but still sends authorized requests to GitHub APIs. PAT setup is explicit and portable, while hosted OAuth is easier but relies on GitHub's remote MCP service.
Risk context	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.	A broadly scoped token plus write-capable tools can alter repositories and collaboration records. Prefer fine-grained credentials, repository restriction, explicit toolsets, GITHUB_READ_ONLY=1, and lockdown mode where public-content prompt injection is a concern.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-07-24	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →