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

RootlyWindows-MCP

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

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 RecommendedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 RecommendedContext7 MCPMCP100 RecommendedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 RecommendedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 RecommendedGhidra MCP ServerMCP100 Recommended

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	RootlyShortlist candidate	Windows-MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for	Incident-response/on-call teams that want Rootly context and supported incident operations inside an MCP client.	Using an AI client to inspect and operate Windows applications when no safer application API exists
Not ideal for	Teams that cannot tightly scope incident-management write actions or credentials.	Deterministic automation that can be implemented through a documented API, CLI, or test framework
Avoid when	Use read-only/write-disabled mode unless the AI client genuinely needs incident mutations.	The desktop session contains sensitive applications, credentials, messages, or files outside the task
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP github:rootlyhq · Publisher source ↗	Community implementation io.github.CursorTouch · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Sep 23, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	45 GitHub stars · checked 2026-10-21	7,140 GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:39.564000Z
Package downloads / 30 days	4,198 package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-10-21	No reliable download data
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Not documented	Claude Code✓ Local stdio Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio Codex✓ Local stdio VS Code✓ Local stdio Cursor✓ Local stdio OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	Hosted service supports OAuth 2.0; reviewed self-hosted/local paths can use Rootly API tokens.	Stdio has no network listener. Non-loopback HTTP requires an auth key or OAuth unless insecure access is explicitly allowed; IP allowlists, TLS, CORS, and host validation are documented.
Cost	Rootly plan and infrastructure/model costs apply.	The MIT-licensed project lists no MCP fee. Windows, Python, hosting, client, and model costs are separate.
Permissions	Authority follows the Rootly account/token and selected tool profile. Write tools can be disabled entirely.	Runs with the invoking user's full Windows permissions, including PowerShell, files, registry, processes, UI input, screenshots, and web scraping; many actions are irreversible.
Data handling	Incident details, responders, service/on-call context and action results can be shared with the AI client/provider.	Processing is local. Telemetry excludes screenshots, state captures, arguments, and outputs but includes status, duration, tool and client information, anonymized sessions, and possibly paths in error messages.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Promoted after strict re-audit: canonical identity and MCP-native/publisher-backed implementation are sufficiently evidenced, with real workflow value, usable documentation, understandable permissions, plausible maintenance, and no unresolved security veto. Still not strong enough for Recommended.	General computer-use reaches many applications, but visual automation is brittle and broad input control can produce high-impact unintended actions.
Risk context	Incident-management mutations can affect live operational response; use slim/read-only modes where possible.	It is not sandboxed and can delete files, alter registry or system settings, type into applications, and execute PowerShell. Use a VM or low-privilege account, backups, supervision, loopback binding, and disabled high-risk tools.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-10-21	2026-08-11
Candidate evidence	2026-10-21T00:00:00Z	2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →