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

sourcegraphGitHub MCP

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

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 SelectedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 SelectedContext7 MCPMCP100 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 SelectedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	sourcegraphMCP100 Selected	GitHub MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	Cross-repository code search, symbol discovery, and codebase investigation.	Repository, issue, pull-request, and code context Teams that can issue a narrowly scoped PAT or use the hosted OAuth flow Read-only GitHub investigation using restricted toolsets
Not ideal for	Teams outside the publisher ecosystem or without least-privilege credentials	Git hosting outside GitHub Users unable to run Docker for the documented local configuration Workflows that need only a small amount of public repository context
Avoid when	The connected identity is broader than the task requires Tool calls cannot be reviewed before consequential mutations	You cannot restrict the token to the necessary repositories and scopes The agent must not receive private repository, issue, pull-request, or user data Your organization has not approved the OAuth app or PAT policy
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP ecosystem:sourcegraph · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP GitHub · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 14, 2026 Package: Not documented
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	Not documented	32,248 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
External adoption evidence	Not documented	github: repository stars: 32,248Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP Codex✓ Streamable HTTP VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP	Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP Codex✓ Streamable HTTP VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	The managed instance endpoint supports Sourcegraph OAuth and documented access controls.	Hosted service supports OAuth; local stdio uses GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN. GitHub recommends minimum scopes, separate tokens, rotation, and environment-variable handling.
Cost	The MCP integration has no separately verified MCP100 price conclusion. Publisher subscriptions, API usage, compute, storage, and AI-client charges may apply.	The open-source server is MIT licensed. GitHub account, Copilot, Enterprise, Actions, API, or other product charges and limits may apply independently.
Permissions	Sourcegraph repository permissions, RBAC, OAuth, and server-side tool controls govern code visibility.	Access follows the authenticated GitHub identity and granted OAuth/PAT permissions. The server supports tool allow-lists, read-only mode, repository-oriented toolsets, and lockdown mode; write tools remain possible unless read-only mode is enabled.
Data handling	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 developer tools information.	Repository contents, issues, pull requests, users, actions, and other enabled GitHub API data may be returned to the MCP client. The local server passes requests to GitHub; the hosted server is operated by GitHub. Do not place PATs in committed configuration.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Cross-repository results can expose proprietary code and security-sensitive implementation details.	The default local toolsets include repositories, issues, pull requests, users, and context; limiting toolsets reduces capability and context size. Local Docker keeps the MCP process local but still sends authorized requests to GitHub APIs. PAT setup is explicit and portable, while hosted OAuth is easier but relies on GitHub's remote MCP service.
Risk context	Cross-repository results can expose proprietary code and security-sensitive implementation details. 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.	A broadly scoped token plus write-capable tools can alter repositories and collaboration records. Prefer fine-grained credentials, repository restriction, explicit toolsets, GITHUB_READ_ONLY=1, and lockdown mode where public-content prompt injection is a concern.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-07-30	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-07-30T19:00:00.000Z	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →