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 fieldWordPress Remote MCPWatchlist candidateNotion MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for
  • WordPress developers/operators who need a remote MCP proxy to a WordPress site using the site's existing user/capability model.
  • Reading and updating explicitly shared Notion pages
  • Markdown-oriented page workflows
  • Teams able to create a dedicated least-privilege integration
Not ideal for
  • Users who want a zero-configuration hosted WordPress service or who cannot safely grant the AI client the underlying WordPress account's capabilities.
  • Whole-workspace access without page scoping
  • Stable local-server APIs with no migration monitoring
  • Workflows that only need occasional manual Notion lookup
Avoid when
  • Avoid using a highly privileged WordPress administrator account when lower-privilege credentials can satisfy the workflow.
  • Sensitive workspace content cannot be exposed to the connected model/client
  • You cannot create a dedicated read-only integration or restrict page access
  • You depend on removed pre-2.0 database tool names
Provenance
Provenance details

Ecosystem official

github:automattic · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Notion · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Stale

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Jul 25, 2026

Package: Jul 25, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

4,594

GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

624,402

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-07-29T17:30:00.000Z

Client coverage
Client coverage detailsNot documented
Claude Code✓ Streamable HTTP
Claude Desktop✓ Streamable HTTP
Codex✓ Streamable HTTP
VS Code✓ Streamable HTTP
Cursor✓ Streamable HTTP
OpenCode✓ Streamable HTTP
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationOAuth 2.1 with PKCE is the preferred path; reviewed alternatives include JWT and WordPress Application Passwords.The supported hosted service uses OAuth. The documented local server uses NOTION_TOKEN or OPENAPI_MCP_HEADERS; HTTP transport has a separate bearer token and supports carefully configured per-request Notion token passthrough.
CostOpen-source proxy; WordPress hosting/plugins/services and AI/model costs can still apply.The local server is MIT licensed. A Notion account and workspace plan are required, and Notion plan/API limits apply; hosted MCP-specific charges were not established in the reviewed materials.
PermissionsEffective permissions follow the authenticated WordPress user and the abilities exposed by the backend MCP Adapter.Local access is limited by the Notion integration capabilities and pages connected to that integration. Read-only capability is available; write-capable tools can create or update workspace content. Local HTTP transport requires bearer authentication unless an explicitly unsafe flag disables it.
Data handlingWordPress content, metadata and action results can transit the proxy and connected AI client/provider. OAuth tokens are stored locally by the proxy and must be protected.Page/database content accessible to the integration can be returned to the MCP client and model. The local server calls Notion APIs; hosted Notion MCP additionally processes requests through Notion's remote service.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Official WordPress MCP adapter is promising and ecosystem-significant, but self-hosted/plugin-dependent maturity and ability scoping need more evidence.
  • Hosted OAuth is actively supported and easier; the local repository warns it may be sunset.
  • Write capability enables useful edits but raises deletion, overwrite, and prompt-injection risk.
  • Version 2 changed database operations to data-source tools, requiring updates to hardcoded prompts.
Risk contextA high-privilege WordPress user can expose broad content/site administration authority to the AI client.Workspace content may be read or modified within the integration's reach. Use a dedicated integration, Read content only where possible, explicitly connect only needed pages, avoid unsafe HTTP auth disabling, and monitor hosted/local migration guidance.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-09-13T00:00:00Z2026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-09-13T00:00:00Z2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →