Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Eureka EHR vs Superlocalmemory
In-depth architectural comparison of the Eureka EHR and Superlocalmemory 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
Eureka EHR
Knowledge & Memory · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 42/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Superlocalmemory
Knowledge & Memory · Local stdio
Quality: 51/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Eureka EHR if you need specialized Knowledge & Memory tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose Superlocalmemory if your workspace requires Knowledge & Memory integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
E
Choose Eureka EHR when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
S
Choose Superlocalmemory when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
- You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
Eureka EHR Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Superlocalmemory 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).
Eureka EHR Configuration
Superlocalmemory Configuration