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

Snyk MCPTerraform 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 RecommendedPlaywright MCPMCP100 Recommended

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	Snyk MCPShortlist candidate	Terraform MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for	Run Snyk application-security scans from coding agents with local project access Snyk users who need to run snyk application-security scans from coding agents with local project access.	Connect compatible AI clients to HashiCorp's documented MCP capabilities.
Not ideal for	The Snyk CLI MCP runs locally because it needs project/file access; scan data can be security-sensitive and may be sent to Snyk services according to the selected product/configuration. This record is the Snyk CLI MCP, not the separate Snyk Evo MCP endpoint.	Users who need a fully reviewed MCP100 recommendation today
Avoid when	The Snyk CLI MCP runs locally because it needs project/file access; scan data can be security-sensitive and may be sent to Snyk services according to the selected product/configuration. This record is the Snyk CLI MCP, not the separate Snyk Evo MCP endpoint.	Permissions, credentials, and connected data cannot be tested with least privilege
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP Snyk · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP HashiCorp · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 14, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	Not documented	1,534 GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-25T18:35:00Z
Shared repository stars	5,684 Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20	Not documented
Shared-package downloads / 30 days	2,608,272 shared-package downloads / 30 days (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20	Not documented
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	Uses Snyk CLI authentication; an existing authenticated Snyk CLI session is sufficient.	HCP Terraform/TFE API tokens; remote client may pass per-user TFE_TOKEN
Cost	The MCP is distributed through the Snyk CLI. Snyk offers a Free plan and paid Team/Enterprise plans; scan limits/features depend on the Snyk plan.	HCP/TFE/run costs may apply
Permissions	The MCP runs locally because it needs project/file access, and scan access follows the local filesystem/project plus the authenticated Snyk account/product permissions.	HCP Terraform/TFE RBAC
Data handling	Not documented in the reviewed sources. The reviewed Snyk MCP cheat sheet does not define an MCP-specific retention policy. Scan input/results may involve proprietary source, dependency, IaC, container, or SBOM data and use Snyk services according to the selected scan/product.	registry/HCP/TFE data may reach connected MCP client/LLM
Limitations
Tradeoffs	First-party evidence confirms the Snyk CLI MCP, local setup, and supported scan families. Exact runtime tool schema/context footprint and exhaustive security review remain unmeasured.	Publisher attribution supports discovery, but does not replace an independent permissions and usability review.
Risk context	The MCP reads local project/security material and may send scan-related data to Snyk services. Findings can reveal vulnerable dependencies, source-code issues, infrastructure configuration and container details.	stdio/localhost defaults; strict CORS; TLS verify on; rate limits; ENABLE_TF_OPERATIONS=false by default
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-10-19	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-10-20	2026-09-25T18:35:00Z

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

Read the evidence method →