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 fieldDocker MCP GatewayMCP100 RecommendedgitkrakenMCP100 Recommended
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
  • Local Git operations and governed GitHub, GitLab, Jira, and Azure DevOps workflows.
Not ideal for
  • Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint
  • Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run
  • Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
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
  • The connected identity is broader than the task requires
  • Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Docker · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

ecosystem:gitkraken · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Sep 23, 2026

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

1,581

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:26.324000Z

Not documented
Shared repository starsNot documented

461

Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-09-24T18:01:37.612000Z

Shared-package downloads / 30 daysNot documented

33,430

shared-package downloads / 30 days (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-09-24T18:01:11.210000Z

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
AuthenticationThe 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.GitKraken CLI manages documented sign-in and provider credentials.
CostThe 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 MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
PermissionsThe 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.Local repository access, connected-service tokens, provider permissions, and read-only mode constrain authority.
Data handlingTool 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.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 developer tools information.
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 multi-provider surface can modify source-control and issue-tracking state; use read-only mode for investigation.
Risk contextGateway 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.The multi-provider surface can modify source-control and issue-tracking state; use read-only mode for investigation. 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 review2026-07-242026-07-30
Candidate evidence2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →