Chromeflow vs Gemini Code Context MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Chromeflow and Gemini Code Context MCP 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?

Choose Chromeflow 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 Chromeflow Details

Choose Gemini Code Context MCP 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 Gemini Code Context MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Chromeflow Developer Tools	Gemini Code Context MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Lets Claude Code or Codex CLI drive your real Chrome — sessions intact, 26 browser tools.	Gemini 2M context cache for Claude Code — persistent; repeat queries ~8x faster, ~4x cheaper.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

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": {
    "chromeflow": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "chromeflow"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gemini-code-context-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@qmediat.io/gemini-code-context-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons