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 fieldPostman MCPWatchlist candidateDocker MCP GatewayMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • Connect compatible AI clients to Postman's documented MCP capabilities.
  • Running multiple MCP servers behind one stdio connection
  • Isolating catalog MCP servers in containers with restricted privileges and resources
  • Centralizing server profiles, secrets, OAuth, logs, and call traces
Not ideal for
  • Users who need a fully reviewed MCP100 recommendation today
  • Users who need only one simple remote MCP endpoint
  • Hosts where Docker Desktop or Docker Engine cannot run
Avoid when
  • Permissions, credentials, and connected data cannot be tested with least privilege
  • You cannot review every downstream MCP server and profile permission
  • The agent must not be able to discover or add tools dynamically
  • Container isolation is being treated as protection from an over-privileged downstream credential
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Postman · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Docker · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Aug 13, 2026

Package: Jul 24, 2026

Repo: Aug 13, 2026

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

296

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

1,529

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

30-day package downloads

39,429

30-day package downloads · checked 2026-07-29T17:30:00.000Z

No reliable download data
External adoption evidence
  • zPlatform: Weekly downloads: 11,856zPlatform: Weekly downloads · Weekly · checked 2026-07-20T08:05:31.779ZEvidence source ↗
  • npm: package downloads: 39,429Exact attributable signal.npm: package downloads · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-07-29T17:30:00.000ZEvidence source ↗
  • github: repository stars: 296Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
  • github: repository stars: 1,529Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude CodeStreamable HTTP
Claude DesktopStreamable HTTP
CodexStreamable HTTP
VS CodeStreamable HTTP
CursorStreamable HTTP
OpenCodeStreamable HTTP
Claude CodeLocal stdio
Claude DesktopLocal stdio
CodexLocal stdio
VS CodeLocal stdio
CursorLocal stdio
OpenCodeLocal stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationFollow only the publisher source; credential storage, scopes, and revocation remain under review.The gateway handles downstream server credentials and OAuth flows. The client connects locally over stdio by running `docker mcp gateway run`, optionally with a named profile.
CostPublisher plans, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply; MCP100 has not published a cost conclusion.The open-source gateway documents no standalone usage fee. Docker Desktop licensing, Docker AI Governance invite-only features, container infrastructure, downstream MCP services, and AI-client charges may apply.
PermissionsExact permissions and read/write boundaries have not completed MCP100 review.The gateway exposes the servers and tools included in the selected profile. It starts catalog servers in containers with restricted privileges, network access, and resource usage, injects configured secrets, and can support OAuth. Dynamic MCP can additionally expose tools that discover, add, configure, remove, and execute servers during a session.
Data handlingCandidate-specific retention, subprocess, telemetry, and model-data behavior remain review items.Tool requests and results pass through the local gateway to downstream MCP containers or remote services. Docker documents built-in logging and call tracing. Credentials are managed and injected by the gateway; downstream servers can still receive data and reach networks allowed by their configuration.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Publisher attribution supports discovery, but does not replace an independent permissions and usability review.
  • Gateway isolation improves lifecycle and credential management but adds Docker runtime complexity and local resource use.
  • The MCP Toolkit is documented as Beta, and Dynamic MCP is experimental.
  • The gateway reduces direct host privileges, but network access and injected credentials still let downstream servers affect external systems.
Risk contextUse a test account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, and explicit approval for mutations.Gateway safety is only as strong as the selected profile, catalog provenance, tool filters, network policy, and downstream credentials. Disable experimental Dynamic MCP unless required, use narrow profiles, verify signatures where available, inspect traces, and treat each downstream server as a separate trust decision. This review does not claim MCP100 execution testing.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-242026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →