China Disclosures vs MCP For API

In-depth architectural comparison of the China Disclosures and MCP For API 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 China Disclosures 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 China Disclosures Details

Choose MCP For API when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: OAuth 2.0 (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Hosted Appwrite Cloud endpoint, Browser-based OAuth and scope consent, Database, user, function, team, and storage tools.

Explore MCP For API Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C China Disclosures Developer Tools	MCP For API Developer Tools
Summary	China Disclosures MCP — non-SEC Chinese biotech deals and HK/STAR IPO	MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for Appwrite
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": {
    "china-disclosures": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "china-disclosures"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-for-api": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-for-api"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons