Commentary Review vs TokenSave

In-depth architectural comparison of the Commentary Review and TokenSave 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 Commentary Review 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 Commentary Review Details

Choose TokenSave 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 TokenSave Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Commentary Review Developer Tools	TokenSave Developer Tools
Summary	Human-owned review for agent plans, rendered documents, Forms, research, and live previews.	Code intelligence for 15+ languages: semantic graph queries instead of file reads. 37 MCP tools.
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": {
    "commentary-review": {
      "url": "https://commentary.dev/integrations/commentary-review?distribution_source=mcp_registry"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tokensave": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@colbymchenry/codegraph"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons