Contextaco vs Temporal MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Contextaco and Temporal 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?

C

Choose Contextaco 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 Contextaco Details

Choose Temporal 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).
• Primary tools included: temporal_tick, temporal_peek.

Explore Temporal MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Contextaco Developer Tools	Temporal MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Never explain the same context twice. Capture it once, load it anywhere, fork it to make it yours.	Wall-clock awareness for LLM agents. Two tools: elapsed-time-between-turns + day rollover detection.
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": {
    "contextaco": {
      "url": "https://contextaco.com"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "temporal-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "wrangler"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons