Cordon vs Scopeblind Gateway

In-depth architectural comparison of the Cordon and Scopeblind Gateway 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 Cordon 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).
• Primary tools included: Per-server and per-tool policy enforcement, Structured JSON audit logging, Terminal and Slack approval workflows.

Explore Cordon Details

Choose Scopeblind Gateway 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).
• You have access to required keys: INTERNAL_API_KEY.
• Primary tools included: Per-tool policy enforcement (block, rate limit, min tier), Shadow mode logs all tool calls without blocking, Enforce mode applies policies to tool calls.

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Cordon Security	Scopeblind Gateway tomjwxf Security
Summary
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": {
    "cordon": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@getcordon/cli"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tomjwxf-scopeblind-gateway": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@scopeblind/passport"
      ],
      "env": {
        "INTERNAL_API_KEY": "YOUR_INTERNAL_API_KEY_HERE"
      }
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons