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 fieldMindsDB MCPWatchlist candidateSupabase MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Connecting LLMs to Minds SDK workflows through MCP
  • Development environments where Minds data access can be tightly scoped
  • Inspecting one Supabase project's schema, logs, advisors, and docs
  • Development environments using project-scoped read-only access
  • Teams that understand database and deployment consequences
Not ideal for
  • High-sensitivity production data without a reviewed least-privilege setup
  • Teams that need a strongly documented hosted tenant boundary
  • Production database administration by an unattended agent
  • Users needing only public Supabase documentation
  • Organizations unable to grant Supabase OAuth access to an MCP client
Avoid when
  • You cannot restrict underlying Minds credentials/data sources
  • You cannot validate whether tools are read-only or mutating before use
  • The server would be left organization-wide rather than project-scoped
  • Write-capable SQL, migrations, functions, branches, or storage changes cannot be human-approved
  • Production secrets or customer records could be returned to the model
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

MindsDB · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Supabase · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Aug 14, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

31

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-11

2,863

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

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

484,999

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-08

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
AuthenticationServer configuration is environment-driven; exact Minds authentication/credential boundary should be confirmed against the current deployment.Hosted MCP uses browser OAuth and grants organization access to the MCP client. Project scope, read-only mode, and feature groups are encoded in URL query parameters. Enterprise-managed authentication is GA for eligible Team and Enterprise organizations. Access remains scoped to each user's existing Supabase role and permissions.
CostOpen-source server; Minds service/model/database costs may apply.The MCP server is open source; normal Supabase plan, database, branch, Edge Function, storage, and usage charges apply. Branching and some storage operations require a paid plan.
PermissionsEffective permissions come from the configured Minds backend/SDK credentials and exposed MCP tools.Without project_ref the hosted server can access all projects in the authorized organization. With project_ref it is limited to one project. read_only=true uses a read-only Postgres user for SQL and disables listed mutation tools. Feature groups can further narrow exposed tools.
Data handlingThe server may expose data and AI resources available through Minds; exact data handling depends on the configured backend.Enabled tools may return schemas, table data from executed queries, logs, security/performance advisors, project metadata, publishable keys, types, and Edge Function source. Hosted mode sends tool requests through Supabase's MCP service.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • First-party implementation lowers identity risk, but effective access depends on the Minds backend credentials and configured server
  • Self-hosting adds operational responsibility
  • Project scoping removes account-level tools but materially reduces blast radius.
  • Read-only mode disables mutations but also removes migration, deployment, branch, and storage configuration workflows.
  • Branching and some storage capabilities require paid plans; the server is pre-1.0 and may change.
Risk contextHigh uncertainty for production. Database/AI actions can expose or mutate sensitive resources if credentials are broad.Unscoped or write-enabled access can affect every project in an organization, execute SQL, apply migrations, deploy functions, or manage branches. Always set project_ref and read_only=true first, minimize feature groups, and avoid production data.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-09-112026-09-05
Candidate evidence2026-09-11T00:00:00.000Z2026-09-05T00:00:00.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →
Compare MCPs | MCP100 Index