ContinueOps Public MCP vs Dingdawg Compliance

In-depth architectural comparison of the ContinueOps Public MCP and Dingdawg Compliance 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 ContinueOps Public MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore ContinueOps Public MCP Details

Choose Dingdawg Compliance when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Dingdawg Compliance Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C ContinueOps Public MCP Security	Dingdawg Compliance Security
Summary	Tools for Business Continuity, DR & compliance: DORA, SOC 2, NIS2, Cyber Essentials, NHS DSPT.	EU AI Act + Colorado AI Act compliance scoring. 87/100 in 60 seconds. Free local scan.
Category & Scope	Security	Security
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": {
    "continueops-public-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "continueops-public-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "dingdawg-compliance": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "dingdawg-compliance"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons