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

Exa MCPElastic 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	Exa MCPMCP100 Selected	Elastic MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	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.	Connect agents to Elastic search, observability, and security data. Teams already using Elastic that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
Not ideal for	Users who need an MCP100-selected recommendation today Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed	Users who need an MCP100-selected 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 Exa · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP Elastic · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Aug 10, 2026 Package: Aug 1, 2026	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	4,867 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	Not documented
30-day package downloads	87,547 30-day package downloads · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	No reliable download data
External adoption evidence	github: repository stars: 4,867Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗	Not documented
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 note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	Authentication follows the publisher's documented endpoint or local-server configuration. OAuth scopes, API-key handling, and revocation behavior remain review items.	Authentication follows the publisher's documented endpoint or local-server configuration. OAuth scopes, API-key handling, and revocation behavior remain review items.
Cost	No 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.
Permissions	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.	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 handling	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.	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 context	Use 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 review	2026-07-24	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	2026-07-30T19:00:00.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →