Head to head
Server vs Protect
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Observability MCP server: query LLM cost/errors/latency & operate alerts/evals from Claude/Cursor
Full listing
No reviews yet
Fail-closed Cedar policy gate + Ed25519 signed receipts for agent tool calls. Denies on any error.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Server (82/100 against 65). Protect has noticeably more public adoption.
| Server | Protect | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | B82/100 | C65/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 0 | 9 |
| Downloads / week | 149 | 1.6k |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | No | No |
| Tools | 89 | 12 |
| Write actions | 32 | 5 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-03 | 2026-09-17 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |