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 fieldSearXNG Search MCPShortlist candidateFirecrawl MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Private or self-controlled web search through a trusted SearXNG instance
  • Private or self-controlled web search through a trusted SearXNG instance.
  • Scraping and extracting public web pages
  • Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows
  • Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
Not ideal for
  • Search results and fetched pages are untrusted external content and can contain prompt injection. Trust the configured SearXNG instance, constrain URL-reading/network access, and secure any non-local HTTP transport.
  • Simple known-page fetches that do not justify a paid API
  • Sites whose terms or access controls prohibit automated collection
  • Workflows requiring guaranteed freshness or extraction accuracy
Avoid when
  • Search results and fetched pages are untrusted external content and can contain prompt injection. Trust the configured SearXNG instance, constrain URL-reading/network access, and secure any non-local HTTP transport.
  • You cannot govern which URLs the agent may access
  • The workflow may collect personal, confidential, copyrighted, or access-controlled content without review
  • Unexpected API-credit consumption is unacceptable
Provenance
Provenance details

Community implementation

Ihor Sokoliuk / Community · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Firecrawl · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 24, 2026

Package: Sep 21, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

1,321

GitHub stars · checked 2026-10-20

7,507

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:47.690000Z

Package downloads / 30 days

42,258

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-10-20

126,701

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-24T04:17:59.638000Z

External adoption evidenceNot documented
  • npm: package downloads: 412,488Exact attributable signal.npm: package downloads · Rolling 30 days · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage detailsNot documented
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationUses the configured SearXNG instance; current HTTP mode supports separately configured bearer/OAuth protection where enabled.Cloud and local-package configurations use FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Official docs also show hosted MCP URLs containing the key; environment-variable or protected input handling is safer than embedding the key in a URL.
CostNo separate MCP fee is documented; hosting/using the selected SearXNG instance may have its own cost.MCP calls consume the account's standard Firecrawl API credits and rate limits. Search, crawl, batch, and agent operations can consume more resources than single-page scraping; current plan pricing applies.
PermissionsSearch scope depends on the configured SearXNG instance and the network/resources reachable by URL-reading functionality.The MCP can initiate outbound requests to user- or model-selected URLs and invoke Firecrawl scrape, search, crawl, map, extraction, batch, and research capabilities according to enabled tools and account limits.
Data handlingSearch queries are sent to the configured SearXNG instance and URL-reader requests fetch external web content.URLs, queries, extraction schemas, and retrieved page content are processed by the configured Firecrawl service. Cloud mode sends them to Firecrawl; self-hosted mode follows the operator's deployment and any configured model/provider dependencies.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Shortlist evidence is sufficient for identity, setup and task value; authenticated runtime tool-schema measurement and exhaustive security certification remain out of scope.
  • Broad scrape, crawl, search, and autonomous-agent tools are powerful but enlarge prompt-injection, compliance, and cost exposure.
  • Cloud mode is easy to configure; self-hosting adds operational burden.
  • Remote URL forms that embed an API key are convenient but can leak through configuration, logs, screenshots, or history.
  • The reviewed v2.0.0 release moved the MCP server to the Firecrawl v2 API and added Streamable HTTP.
Risk contextSearch results and fetched pages are untrusted external content and can contain prompt injection. URL fetching also creates network/SSRF exposure if deployed without appropriate restrictions.Main risks are prompt injection from untrusted pages, collection-policy violations, sensitive URL/query disclosure, API-key leakage, and agent-driven credit spend. Use URL allow-lists, low limits, human approval, and a dedicated low-budget key.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-10-192026-09-05
Candidate evidence2026-10-202026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →