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 fieldKnip MCPShortlist candidateDocker MCP GatewayMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Analyze JavaScript/TypeScript projects for unused code and dependencies
  • Analyze JavaScript/TypeScript projects for unused code and dependencies.
  • 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
Not ideal for
  • The analysis reads project files and configuration. It is primarily diagnostic, but agents may propose deletions based on findings; review changes before removing code or dependencies.
  • Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint
  • Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run
Avoid when
  • The analysis reads project files and configuration. It is primarily diagnostic, but agents may propose deletions based on findings; review changes before removing code or dependencies.
  • 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
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Knip · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Docker · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 23, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

1,581

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

Package downloads / 30 days

22,929

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-10-20

No reliable download data
Shared repository stars

12,484

Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20

Not documented
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
AuthenticationNo authentication is required for the local Knip MCP.The 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.
CostNo separate MCP fee is documented.The 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.
PermissionsThe MCP analyzes the local project/workspace available to the running process.The 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.
Data handlingProject files and Knip analysis results remain in the local developer process; documentation is bundled into the package.Tool 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.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Shortlist evidence is sufficient for identity, setup and task value; authenticated runtime tool-schema measurement and exhaustive security certification remain out of scope.
  • 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.
Risk contextThe MCP itself is diagnostic/read-oriented, but its findings may prompt an agent to delete code, files, exports, or dependencies incorrectly if not reviewed.Gateway 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.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-10-192026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-10-202026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →