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

io.github.blazickjp/arxiv-mcp-servercoda

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

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 RecommendedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 RecommendedContext7 MCPMCP100 RecommendedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 RecommendedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 RecommendedPlaywright MCPMCP100 Recommended

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	io.github.blazickjp/arxiv-mcp-serverMCP100 Recommended	codaMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for	Researchers who want focused arXiv literature workflows with local storage and bounded reads Agents that need original LaTeX sections, citation graphs, BibTeX export, and topic watches without ingesting whole papers into context	Collaborative document and structured-table workflows in Coda.
Not ideal for	Users who need a fully hosted zero-local-state service Workflows that cannot safely treat paper text and LaTeX as untrusted content	Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
Avoid when	Your agent automatically acts on instructions embedded in retrieved papers without approval You expose the optional HTTP transport publicly without upstream authentication and explicit Host/Origin controls	The connected identity is broader than the task requires Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details	Community implementation reviewed-promotion:io-github-blazickjp-arxiv-mcp-server · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP ecosystem:coda · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Aug 26, 2026 Package: Not documented	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	3,173 GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:39.538000Z	Not documented
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	Default stdio operation requires no arXiv API key. citation_graph can optionally use SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY for higher reliability. If Streamable HTTP is enabled, the project recommends keeping it private or adding authentication upstream.	The official hosted endpoint supports OAuth 2 and personal access tokens.
Cost	The server is open source under Apache-2.0 and does not require an arXiv API key. External services may impose their own rate limits; an optional Semantic Scholar API key can improve citation reliability.	The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
Permissions	The server searches external research services, downloads papers/source archives, and reads/writes its own local paper cache, topic watches, and semantic index under the configured storage path. It does not require broad account-level permissions.	Coda document sharing, user permissions, admin controls, and OAuth or PAT scope determine access.
Data handling	Downloaded papers, source archives, topic watches, and indexes are stored locally (default ~/.arxiv-mcp-server/papers). Search/source/citation/download requests go to external services. Paper text and LaTeX are explicitly treated as untrusted external input.	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 files & knowledge information.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Local storage and bounded reads improve privacy/context control, but downloaded papers, source archives, alerts, and indexes remain on the user's machine Citation graphs depend on Semantic Scholar and optional API credentials; semantic search/reindex require the pro extra	Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records.
Risk context	Low to medium. Main risks are prompt injection in paper content, hostile LaTeX archives, local disk writes, and optional HTTP exposure. The project mitigates archive traversal/decompression risks, bounds content, binds HTTP to loopback by default, and enables DNS-rebinding protections.	Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records. 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 review	2026-09-11	2026-07-30
Candidate evidence	2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z	2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →