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 fieldElastic MCPMCP100 RecommendedExa MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Connect agents to Elastic search, observability, and security data.
  • Teams already using Elastic that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
  • Search the web, retrieve pages, find code, and run research workflows through Exa.
  • Teams already using Exa that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
Not ideal for
  • Users who need an MCP100-recommended recommendation today
  • Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
  • Users who need an MCP100-recommended recommendation today
  • Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
Avoid when
  • 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
  • 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

First-party MCP

Elastic · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Exa · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 23, 2026

Package: Sep 21, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

5,045

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:16.246000Z

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

248,026

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-24T04:17:39.104000Z

External adoption evidenceNot documented
  • npm: package downloads: 87,547Exact attributable signal.npm: package downloads · Rolling 30 days · 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✓ 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
AuthenticationElastic API-key and RBAC privilege boundaries remain primary. OAuth 2.1 applies only to deployment and product paths where Elastic documents it, including the current Agent Builder and Elastic Cloud Serverless flow; do not generalize that claim to every Elastic MCP deployment.Authentication follows the publisher's documented endpoint or local-server configuration. OAuth scopes, API-key handling, and revocation behavior remain review items.
CostNo MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.No MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.
PermissionsExact permissions and the read/write boundary have not yet completed MCP100 independent review; consult the linked publisher sources and use the narrowest available scope.Exact permissions and the read/write boundary have not yet completed MCP100 independent review; consult the linked publisher sources and use the narrowest available scope.
Data handlingPublisher-accessible account or application data may be returned to the MCP client and its selected model. Retention and subprocess behavior require candidate-specific review.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
  • 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.
  • 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 contextUse a test workspace or non-production account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, explicit approval for mutations, and credential revocation after evaluation.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 review2026-09-052026-07-24
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 →