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 fieldSerpApi MCPShortlist candidateFirecrawl MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Query multiple search engines through SerpApi from an MCP client
  • SerpApi users who need to query multiple search engines through serpapi from an mcp client.
  • Scraping and extracting public web pages
  • Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows
  • Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
Not ideal for
  • Treat the API key as a secret. A key placed in the URL path can appear in request logs, so Bearer-header authentication is preferable.
  • 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
  • Treat the API key as a secret. A key placed in the URL path can appear in request logs, so Bearer-header authentication is preferable.
  • 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

First-party MCP

SerpApi · 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

180

GitHub stars · checked 2026-10-20

7,507

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

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

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
AuthenticationNo key is required to connect/list tools/read resources. Search requires a SerpApi key; Bearer authentication is recommended, while a path-based key form is also supported.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.
CostSerpApi has a free plan with a monthly search allowance and paid plans for higher usage. Search tool calls consume the user's SerpApi search quota.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.
PermissionsThe core MCP is search-oriented and does not expose account mutation tools in the reviewed implementation.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 handlingSerpApi states the MCP server sees only parameters passed to the tool call and does not see conversation, files, memory, or history. Request metrics are recorded, but queries and results are not stored by the MCP server.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 contextThe service sends search parameters to SerpApi/search engines and returns third-party web/search content. Risks are API-key leakage, quota consumption, and untrusted/misleading search content rather than destructive account actions.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 →