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 fieldKagi Search MCPMCP100 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Web/news/media search with Kagi's index
  • Fetching page content as Markdown through a focused two-tool surface
  • Scraping and extracting public web pages
  • Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows
  • Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
Not ideal for
  • Teams that require OAuth instead of bearer API keys
  • Workloads that need browser automation or site mutation
  • Simple known-page fetches that do not justify a paid API
  • Sites whose terms or access controls prohibit automated collection
  • Workflows requiring guaranteed freshness or extraction accuracy
Avoid when
  • You cannot safely store or pass a Kagi API key
  • You need a broader crawl/browser automation toolset
  • You cannot govern which URLs the agent may access
  • The workflow may collect personal, confidential, copyrighted, or access-controlled content without review
  • Unexpected API-credit consumption is unacceptable
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Kagi Inc. · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Firecrawl · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Aug 12, 2026

Package: Aug 12, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

7,234

GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

320,730

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-08

External adoption evidenceNot documented
  • npm: package downloads: 412,488Exact attributable signal.npm: package downloads · Rolling 30 days · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage detailsNot documented
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
AuthenticationHosted and local modes use a Kagi API key; hosted HTTP uses Authorization: Bearer <key>. OAuth2 is not supported yet.Cloud and local-package configurations use FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Official docs also show hosted MCP URLs containing the key; environment-variable or protected input handling is safer than embedding the key in a URL.
CostKagi API billing is separate from a Kagi subscription and depends on API usage.MCP calls consume the account's standard Firecrawl API credits and rate limits. Search, crawl, batch, and agent operations can consume more resources than single-page scraping; current plan pricing applies.
PermissionsThe MCP exposes Kagi search and page extraction only; it does not provide browser-control or general write actions.The MCP can initiate outbound requests to user- or model-selected URLs and invoke Firecrawl scrape, search, crawl, map, extraction, batch, and research capabilities according to enabled tools and account limits.
Data handlingSearch queries and extraction URLs are sent to Kagi; returned web content should be treated as untrusted external data.URLs, queries, extraction schemas, and retrieved page content are processed by the configured Firecrawl service. Cloud mode sends them to Firecrawl; self-hosted mode follows the operator's deployment and any configured model/provider dependencies.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Small tool surface reduces complexity, but it is narrower than full web-automation MCPs
  • Hosted and self-hosted modes still send search/extraction requests to Kagi APIs
  • Broad scrape, crawl, search, and autonomous-agent tools are powerful but enlarge prompt-injection, compliance, and cost exposure.
  • Cloud mode is easy to configure; self-hosting adds operational burden.
  • Remote URL forms that embed an API key are convenient but can leak through configuration, logs, screenshots, or history.
  • The reviewed v2.0.0 release moved the MCP server to the Firecrawl v2 API and added Streamable HTTP.
Risk contextMedium. Main concerns are API-key handling, query privacy, untrusted web content, and cost/rate usage rather than destructive side effects.Main risks are prompt injection from untrusted pages, collection-policy violations, sensitive URL/query disclosure, API-key leakage, and agent-driven credit spend. Use URL allow-lists, low limits, human approval, and a dedicated low-budget key.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-09-112026-09-05
Candidate evidence2026-09-11T00:00:00.000Z2026-09-05T00:00:00.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →