Clavis vs IntakeQ MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Clavis and IntakeQ 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 Clavis when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Monitoring domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: call_service, get_credentials, list_services.

Explore Clavis Details

I

Choose IntakeQ MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Monitoring domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: set_api_key, auth_status, clear_api_key.

Explore IntakeQ MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Clavis Monitoring	I IntakeQ MCP Monitoring
Summary	Encrypted credential vault for AI agents — auto OAuth refresh, rate limiting, audit logging.	IntakeQ/PracticeQ MCP connector with HIPAA §164.312(b) audit logging on every PHI read/write
Category & Scope	Monitoring	Monitoring
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": {
    "clavis": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@clavisagent/mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "intakeq-mcp": {
      "url": "https://oktopeak.com/?utm_source=github&utm_medium=readme&utm_campaign=intakeq-mcp&utm_content=top-byline"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons