COTI Private Messaging vs Emailmd

In-depth architectural comparison of the COTI Private Messaging and Emailmd 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 COTI Private Messaging when:

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

Explore COTI Private Messaging Details

Choose Emailmd when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Markdown to responsive, email-safe HTML conversion, Plain text email version generation, Linting for email deliverability issues.

Explore Emailmd Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	COTI Private Messaging Communication	Emailmd anypost Communication
Summary	Private encrypted agent messaging, hidden state exchange, delegation, and private inbox workflows.	Write and preview emails from your assistant. Renders markdown into email-safe HTML that holds up in Outlook and Gmail, lints drafts for deliverability problems, and returns a live preview link. Hosted with no API key, or run it locally with npx emailmd mcp.
Category & Scope	Communication

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": {
    "coti-private-messaging": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "-p"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "anypost-emailmd": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "emailmd"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons