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

MCPVault for Obsidiancoda

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 SelectedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 SelectedContext7 MCPMCP100 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 SelectedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	MCPVault for ObsidianMCP100 Selected	codaMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	Obsidian users who want local search and supervised note maintenance Vaults protected by version control or reliable backups Users able to expose only a dedicated, bounded vault	Collaborative document and structured-table workflows in Coda.
Not ideal for	Unbacked-up personal knowledge bases Read-only research where a simpler filesystem search is sufficient Enterprise knowledge requiring centralized authorization and audit controls	Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
Avoid when	The vault contains secrets, regulated data, or material that cannot reach the selected AI provider Write, move, and delete tools cannot be confirmed by a human The vault path cannot be narrowed to a dedicated directory	The connected identity is broader than the task requires Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details	Community implementation BitBonsai · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP ecosystem:coda · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Aug 13, 2026 Package: Aug 9, 2026	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	1,613 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	Not documented
30-day package downloads	64,139 30-day package downloads · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	No reliable download data
External adoption evidence	github: repository stars: 1,613Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗	Not documented
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Claude Code✓ Local stdio Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio Codex✓ Local stdio VS Code✓ Local stdio Cursor✓ Local stdio OpenCode✓ Local stdio	Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP Codex✓ Streamable HTTP VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	None at the local stdio layer.	The official hosted endpoint supports OAuth 2 and personal access tokens.
Cost	MCPVault is MIT licensed and free to run locally. MCP-host, model, backup, and storage costs remain.	The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
Permissions	The server has filesystem read and write access within the supplied vault root, including note creation, overwrite or patch, frontmatter changes, moves, tags, and deletion. Operating-system permissions and the configured vault path are the primary boundary.	Coda document sharing, user permissions, admin controls, and OAuth or PAT scope determine access.
Data handling	Vault content and metadata are read locally and returned to the MCP client and model. Changes are written directly to local files. MCPVault states that it does not receive, store, or transmit vault data, while the selected AI provider still processes content sent by the client.	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	Local stdio avoids a hosted MCP service, but note contents still enter the MCP host and model context. Frontmatter-aware writes are more useful than generic file access but increase integrity risk. npx makes setup simple, while stricter environments may prefer a pinned and reviewed package version.	Documents and tables can contain broad internal knowledge, and write tools can alter shared operational records.
Risk context	A selected vault can contain a large body of private knowledge, and write tools can overwrite, move, or delete it. Use a dedicated vault, reliable backups or version control, an absolute path, a reviewed package version, and explicit approval for writes.	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 review	2026-07-24	2026-07-30
Candidate evidence	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	2026-07-30T19:00:00.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →