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 fieldMake MCPShortlist candidatecodaMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Run and manage Make automation workflows from MCP clients
  • Run and manage Make automation workflows from MCP clients.
  • Collaborative document and structured-table workflows in Coda.
Not ideal for
  • Management scopes can modify scenarios, connections, webhooks, data stores and organization resources; scenario runs can trigger downstream external actions. OAuth can restrict access to a specific Make organization, while MCP-token access is broader by token scope.
  • Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
Avoid when
  • Management scopes can modify scenarios, connections, webhooks, data stores and organization resources; scenario runs can trigger downstream external actions. OAuth can restrict access to a specific Make organization, while MCP-token access is broader by token scope.
  • The connected identity is broader than the task requires
  • Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Make · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

ecosystem:coda · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
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
AuthenticationOAuth to `https://mcp.make.com`, or an MCP token using the Make-hosted regional connection URL.The official hosted endpoint supports OAuth 2 and personal access tokens.
CostNo separate MCP-server price was stated in the reviewed MCP overview. Scenario-run tools are available across plans; management-tool availability is plan-dependent.The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
PermissionsAvailable tools are controlled by granted OAuth/MCP-token scopes and the selected Make organization. Scenario-run tools are broadly available; management tools depend on plan and granted management scopes.Coda document sharing, user permissions, admin controls, and OAuth or PAT scope determine access.
Data handlingTool inputs are sent to Make to invoke or manage Make resources/scenarios, and Make returns tool outputs to the MCP client. The reviewed MCP docs do not state a separate MCP-specific model-training policy.Authorized service data and tool results pass through the MCP server to the connected AI client. Review the publisher and client data policies before using sensitive files & knowledge information.
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.
  • Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records.
Risk contextRunning a scenario can trigger downstream external actions. Management scopes can modify Make scenarios, connections, webhooks, data stores, and organization resources.Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records. Use a test environment where practical, least-privilege credentials, narrowly enabled tools, and explicit confirmation for mutations. MCP100 did not execute third-party server code during this documentation review.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-10-192026-07-30
Candidate evidence2026-10-202026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →