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

WorkOS MCPContext7 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 SelectedFirecrawl MCPMCP100 SelectedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 SelectedExcel MCP ServerMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	WorkOS MCPRemoved	Context7 MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	Connect compatible AI clients to WorkOS's documented MCP capabilities.	Current library and API documentation inside coding agents Read-only technical lookup with a small two-tool surface Users who want remote or local npx connection options
Not ideal for	Users who need a fully reviewed MCP100 recommendation today	Private internal documentation not indexed by Context7 Guaranteed authoritative answers without checking the cited upstream docs Offline-only development
Avoid when	Permissions, credentials, and connected data cannot be tested with least privilege	Your policy prohibits sending formulated documentation queries to a hosted service You require complete or guaranteed-correct community-contributed documentation You cannot keep an API key out of shared configuration
Provenance
Provenance details	First-party MCP WorkOS · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP Upstash · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Not documented Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 14, 2026 Package: Aug 11, 2026
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	Not documented	60,740 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
30-day package downloads	No reliable download data	3,916,841 30-day package downloads · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
External adoption evidence	Not documented	github: repository stars: 60,740Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Not documented	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	Follow only the publisher source; credential storage, scopes, and revocation remain under review.	Remote MCP accepts CONTEXT7_API_KEY as an HTTP header. The local package accepts --api-key. The CLI can use OAuth to generate an API key; unauthenticated documentation commands may have lower limits.
Cost	Publisher plans, API usage, infrastructure, or per-action charges may apply; MCP100 has not published a cost conclusion.	A free API key and free usage are documented, with higher-rate or team/enterprise offerings potentially requiring a paid plan. Applicable limits should be checked in the current Context7 dashboard.
Permissions	Exact permissions and read/write boundaries have not completed MCP100 review.	The MCP surface resolves library identifiers and queries documentation. It does not require repository or filesystem write access for the documented hosted mode.
Data handling	Candidate-specific retention, subprocess, telemetry, and model-data behavior remain review items.	Context7 states that formulated queries are sent to its API while full prompts, source code, and conversation history are not transmitted; its tool descriptions instruct clients to remove secrets, personal data, and proprietary code.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Publisher attribution supports discovery, but does not replace an independent permissions and usability review.	An API key is recommended for higher limits, adding account and secret management. Context7 says it sends formulated queries rather than full prompts or source code, but queries still leave the client. Community-contributed projects can be incomplete or inaccurate and should be checked against primary documentation.
Risk context	Use a test account, least privilege, read-only controls where available, and explicit approval for mutations.	Primary risks are query disclosure, stale or inaccurate indexed documentation, and accidental API-key exposure. Keep queries free of proprietary details and verify consequential advice against first-party library documentation.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-07-24	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-07-29T02:23:36.769Z	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

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

Read the evidence method →