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 candidateGitHub MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Analyze JavaScript/TypeScript projects for unused code and dependencies
  • Analyze JavaScript/TypeScript projects for unused code and dependencies.
  • Repository, issue, pull-request, and code context
  • Teams that can issue a narrowly scoped PAT or use the hosted OAuth flow
  • Read-only GitHub investigation using restricted toolsets
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.
  • Git hosting outside GitHub
  • Users unable to run Docker for the documented local configuration
  • Workflows that need only a small amount of public repository context
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 restrict the token to the necessary repositories and scopes
  • The agent must not receive private repository, issue, pull-request, or user data
  • Your organization has not approved the OAuth app or PAT policy
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Knip · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

GitHub · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 22, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

33,158

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:26.342000Z

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✓ 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
AuthenticationNo authentication is required for the local Knip MCP.Hosted service supports OAuth; local stdio uses GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN. GitHub recommends minimum scopes, separate tokens, rotation, and environment-variable handling.
CostNo separate MCP fee is documented.The open-source server is MIT licensed. GitHub account, Copilot, Enterprise, Actions, API, or other product charges and limits may apply independently.
PermissionsThe MCP analyzes the local project/workspace available to the running process.Access follows the authenticated GitHub identity and granted OAuth/PAT permissions. The server supports tool allow-lists, read-only mode, repository-oriented toolsets, and lockdown mode; write tools remain possible unless read-only mode is enabled.
Data handlingProject files and Knip analysis results remain in the local developer process; documentation is bundled into the package.Repository contents, issues, pull requests, users, actions, and other enabled GitHub API data may be returned to the MCP client. The local server passes requests to GitHub; the hosted server is operated by GitHub. Do not place PATs in committed 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.
  • The default local toolsets include repositories, issues, pull requests, users, and context; limiting toolsets reduces capability and context size.
  • Local Docker keeps the MCP process local but still sends authorized requests to GitHub APIs.
  • PAT setup is explicit and portable, while hosted OAuth is easier but relies on GitHub's remote MCP service.
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.A broadly scoped token plus write-capable tools can alter repositories and collaboration records. Prefer fine-grained credentials, repository restriction, explicit toolsets, GITHUB_READ_ONLY=1, and lockdown mode where public-content prompt injection is a concern.
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 →