Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
CountLink vs Footnote
In-depth architectural comparison of the CountLink and Footnote 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.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
CountLink
Developer Tools · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Footnote
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 41/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose CountLink if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose Footnote if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
C
Choose CountLink 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).
F
Choose Footnote 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).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
CountLink Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Footnote Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
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).
CountLink Configuration
Footnote Configuration