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 fieldLinear MCPMCP100 SelectedAtlassian Remote MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Searching and summarizing Linear issues and projects
  • Human-supervised issue, project, and comment updates
  • Read-only planning assistants using Linear's dedicated read-only endpoint
  • Searching and summarizing Jira and Confluence knowledge
  • Creating and updating Jira work items or Confluence content with approval
  • Connecting supported AI clients to Atlassian Cloud without self-hosting a server
Not ideal for
  • Fully autonomous project administration
  • Organizations that cannot authorize third-party MCP clients
  • Workflows requiring Linear capabilities not exposed by the current MCP tools
  • Atlassian Server or Data Center deployments
  • Organizations that do not allow enterprise content to pass through an external AI client
  • Headless use when organization administrators do not permit API-token authentication
Avoid when
  • The client cannot securely complete OAuth or protect bearer credentials
  • Issue and roadmap content cannot be shown to the selected AI client or model
  • Write operations cannot be independently reviewed or audited
  • The AI client is not approved for the Jira, Confluence, Bitbucket, Compass, or connected third-party data involved
  • Existing Atlassian user permissions are too broad for agent use
  • Write and bulk actions cannot require review
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Linear · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Atlassian · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
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 noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationOAuth 2.1 with dynamic client registration is the primary method. Linear also documents bearer tokens and scoped API keys.OAuth 2.1 browser authorization is the default and recommended method. Admin-enabled, scoped personal API tokens support headless use and are required for Jira Service Management and Bitbucket Cloud tools; Compass tools require OAuth.
CostLinear documents no separate MCP server fee on its setup page. A Linear account is required, and normal plan capabilities, limits, and charges still apply.The core connection has no separately stated MCP fee. Users need applicable Atlassian Cloud products and an AI client. Beta tools are currently free; Atlassian says some may later be billed in Rovo credits with notice, and Teamwork Graph calls are expected to consume credits at general availability.
PermissionsThe standard endpoint exposes read and write tools for issues, projects, comments, and related Linear objects under the user's permissions. https://mcp.linear.app/mcp/readonly exposes only read tools, and Linear also documents read-only API keys.Tools are grouped by product and read, write, or search intent. Organization admins grant or revoke permission groups, and calls also honor the connected user's Jira, Confluence, Jira Service Management, Bitbucket, Compass, project, space, IP-allowlist, and OAuth or API-token scopes.
Data handlingAuthorized Linear issue, project, comment, and related workspace data is retrieved by Linear's hosted server and returned to the MCP client. Write calls can change workspace records.The Atlassian-hosted server retrieves and returns authorized Atlassian Cloud content to the external MCP client. Teamwork Graph tools can aggregate relationships across Atlassian products and connected third-party apps and may use AI processing. Traffic uses HTTPS/TLS, and Atlassian records tool-use events in the organization audit log.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Hosted operation removes local server maintenance but places Linear workspace data in the connected AI workflow.
  • The standard endpoint is read-write; the dedicated read-only endpoint materially reduces integrity risk.
  • API keys enable non-interactive use but shift secret storage, scoping, and rotation duties to the operator.
  • The hosted service honors existing product permissions and provides audit events, but it can expose broad enterprise knowledge to the connected AI client.
  • OAuth 2.1 is recommended; API tokens support headless workflows but require admin enablement and careful scope management.
  • Some Teamwork Graph and search tools are Beta and may later consume paid Rovo credits.
Risk contextInternal roadmap and issue data can be disclosed, and the default endpoint can modify collaboration records. Prefer the read-only endpoint for research, use least-privilege credentials, and require approval for mutations.The integration can read and modify enterprise work and knowledge across several Atlassian products. Approve client domains, use least privilege, restrict permission groups and token scopes, retain write confirmation, review audit logs, and evaluate the external AI client's data policy. This review does not claim MCP100 execution testing.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-242026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-07-29T20:58:26.000Z2026-07-29T20:58:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →