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

PagerDuty MCPGrafana Cloud MCP

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 SelectedMCP Server for WinDbg Crash AnalysisMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	PagerDuty MCPWatchlist candidate	Grafana Cloud MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	Connect compatible AI clients to PagerDuty's documented MCP capabilities.	Query Grafana Cloud metrics, logs, dashboards, and observability context. Teams already using Grafana Labs that can test with non-sensitive data and least privilege.
Not ideal for	Users who need a fully reviewed MCP100 recommendation today	Users who need an MCP100-selected recommendation today Unattended production workflows before permissions and failure behavior are reviewed
Avoid when	Permissions, credentials, and connected data cannot be tested with least privilege	The connected data or account cannot be safely exposed to the selected AI client You cannot verify least-privilege access and review write-capable tool calls
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP PagerDuty · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP Grafana Labs · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Jul 15, 2026 Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 14, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	75 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	3,356 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
External adoption evidence	zPlatform: Weekly downloads: 25,648zPlatform: Weekly downloads · Weekly · checked 2026-07-20T08:05:31.779ZEvidence source ↗ github: repository stars: 75Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗	github: repository stars: 3,356Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
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✓ 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	Follow only the publisher source; credential storage, scopes, and revocation remain under review.	Authentication follows the publisher's documented endpoint or local-server configuration. OAuth scopes, API-key handling, and revocation behavior remain review items.
Cost	Publisher plans, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply; MCP100 has not published a cost conclusion.	No MCP100 cost conclusion is published yet. The publisher's account plan, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply.
Permissions	Exact permissions and read/write boundaries have not completed MCP100 review.	Exact permissions and the read/write boundary have not yet completed MCP100 independent review; consult the linked publisher sources and use the narrowest available scope.
Data handling	Candidate-specific retention, subprocess, telemetry, and model-data behavior remain review items.	Publisher-accessible account or application data may be returned to the MCP client and its selected model. Retention and subprocess behavior require candidate-specific review.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Publisher attribution supports discovery, but does not replace an independent permissions and usability review.	First-party provenance and a clear task improve confidence, but do not replace an independent permissions and usability review. Client transport compatibility does not prove that authentication, scopes, failure handling, and every tool behave safely.
Risk context	Use a test account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, and explicit approval for mutations.	Use a test workspace or non-production account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, explicit approval for mutations, and credential revocation after evaluation.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-07-24	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →