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

Linear MCPWindows-MCP

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 RecommendedGhidra MCP ServerMCP100 Recommended

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	Linear MCPMCP100 Recommended	Windows-MCPMCP100 Recommended
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	Using an AI client to inspect and operate Windows applications when no safer application API exists
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	Deterministic automation that can be implemented through a documented API, CLI, or test framework
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 desktop session contains sensitive applications, credentials, messages, or files outside the task
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP Linear · Publisher source ↗	Community implementation io.github.CursorTouch · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Sep 23, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	Not documented	7,140 GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:39.564000Z
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✓ Local stdio Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio Codex✓ Local stdio VS Code✓ Local stdio Cursor✓ Local stdio OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	OAuth 2.1 with dynamic client registration is the primary method. Linear also documents bearer tokens and scoped API keys.	Stdio has no network listener. Non-loopback HTTP requires an auth key or OAuth unless insecure access is explicitly allowed; IP allowlists, TLS, CORS, and host validation are documented.
Cost	Linear 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 MIT-licensed project lists no MCP fee. Windows, Python, hosting, client, and model costs are separate.
Permissions	The 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.	Runs with the invoking user's full Windows permissions, including PowerShell, files, registry, processes, UI input, screenshots, and web scraping; many actions are irreversible.
Data handling	Authorized 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.	Processing is local. Telemetry excludes screenshots, state captures, arguments, and outputs but includes status, duration, tool and client information, anonymized sessions, and possibly paths in error messages.
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.	General computer-use reaches many applications, but visual automation is brittle and broad input control can produce high-impact unintended actions.
Risk context	Internal 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.	It is not sandboxed and can delete files, alter registry or system settings, type into applications, and execute PowerShell. Use a VM or low-privilege account, backups, supervision, loopback binding, and disabled high-risk tools.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-07-24	2026-08-11
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 →