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 fieldOfficial MCP Kotlin SDKWatchlist candidateGitHub MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Kotlin/JVM or Kotlin Multiplatform teams building MCP clients or servers with the official SDK.
  • 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
  • Teams that need a different language/runtime or a fully managed end-user MCP service.
  • 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
  • Avoid treating the SDK itself as a prebuilt MCP server; permissions and side effects depend on the application built with it.
  • 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

github:modelcontextprotocol · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

GitHub · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Stale

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Aug 14, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

32,248

GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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
AuthenticationApplication-defined; remote MCP authorization depends on the server/client you build.Hosted service supports OAuth; local stdio uses GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN. GitHub recommends minimum scopes, separate tokens, rotation, and environment-variable handling.
CostOpen-source SDK; application hosting and connected services may be billable.The open-source server is MIT licensed. GitHub account, Copilot, Enterprise, Actions, API, or other product charges and limits may apply independently.
PermissionsApplication-defined by the capabilities exposed through the SDK.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 handlingApplication-defined; the SDK transports protocol messages but does not define a hosted retention policy.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
  • Official and capable, but independent ecosystem adoption is still less established than the most broadly used Selected SDKs.
  • 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 contextOfficial and capable, but independent ecosystem adoption is still less established than the most broadly used Selected SDKs.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 review2026-09-13T00:00:00Z2026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-09-13T00:00:00Z2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →