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 fieldsonarqubeMCP100 RecommendedsemgrepMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Code-quality and application-security investigation with optional controlled project operations.
  • Static-analysis and secure-coding investigation within the maintained Semgrep CLI.
Not ideal for
  • Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
  • Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials
Avoid when
  • The connected identity is broader than the task requires
  • Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
  • The connected identity is broader than the task requires
  • Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

ecosystem:sonarqube · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

ecosystem:semgrep · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Sep 24, 2026

Package: Not documented

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

656

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:47.688000Z

Not documented
Shared repository starsNot documented

16,755

Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-09-24T18:02:25.367000Z

Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
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
AuthenticationThe server uses publisher-documented Sonar tokens or managed HTTP authentication.Local scanning needs no remote credential; platform features use Semgrep authentication.
CostThe MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.
PermissionsSonarQube or SonarCloud token permissions, toolsets, and read-only mode constrain accessible projects and actions.Local filesystem scope and optional Semgrep AppSec Platform token permissions define accessible code and findings.
Data handlingAuthorized service data and tool results pass through the MCP server to the connected AI client. Review the publisher and client data policies before using sensitive security & testing information.Authorized service data and tool results pass through the MCP server to the connected AI client. Review the publisher and client data policies before using sensitive security & testing information.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Source findings and code excerpts can be sensitive; mutation tools should remain disabled unless required.
  • Scanning shares source-derived findings with the MCP client and may consume substantial local resources.
Risk contextSource findings and code excerpts can be sensitive; mutation tools should remain disabled unless required. Use a test environment where practical, least-privilege credentials, narrowly enabled tools, and explicit confirmation for mutations. MCP100 did not execute third-party server code during this documentation review.Scanning shares source-derived findings with the MCP client and may consume substantial local resources. Use a test environment where practical, least-privilege credentials, narrowly enabled tools, and explicit confirmation for mutations. MCP100 did not execute third-party server code during this documentation review.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-07-302026-07-30
Candidate evidence2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

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

Read the evidence method →