Charming vs CodemagicMcp

In-depth architectural comparison of the Charming and CodemagicMcp 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?

C

Choose Charming 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).
• Primary tools included: create_app, update_app, get_app.

Explore Charming Details

Choose CodemagicMcp 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).
• Primary tools included: list_apps, get_app, add_app.

Explore CodemagicMcp Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Charming Developer Tools	CodemagicMcp Developer Tools
Summary	Build personal interactive apps with real URLs and persistent storage, using any AI.	Codemagic CI/CD MCP Server — manage builds, apps, artifacts, and caches from your AI
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": {
    "charming": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codemagicmcp": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "to"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons