Buska vs Easeclaw

In-depth architectural comparison of the Buska and Easeclaw MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

B

Choose Buska when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Buska Details

Choose Easeclaw when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Easeclaw Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	B Buska Developer Tools	Easeclaw Developer Tools
Summary	Social listening for AI agents: search mentions, pull scored buying signals, score leads	AI lead-finder for agents: pull scored leads, draft replies in your voice, work the pipeline.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "buska": {
      "url": "https://www.buska.io"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "easeclaw": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons