Fake Star Audit vs MCP Slim Guard

In-depth architectural comparison of the Fake Star Audit and MCP Slim Guard 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 Fake Star Audit 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 Fake Star Audit Details

Choose MCP Slim Guard 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 MCP Slim Guard Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Fake Star Audit Security	MCP Slim Guard Security
Summary	Transparent rule-based GitHub fake-star detector — LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH with per-rule evidence.	Schema compression (83%+ savings) + security proxy for MCP servers — SSRF, injection, rate limit
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": {
    "fake-star-audit": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "fake-star-audit"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-slim-guard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-slim-guard"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons