Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
FastAF vs Riveter
In-depth architectural comparison of the FastAF and Riveter 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
FastAF
Search & Data Extraction · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 42/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Riveter
Search & Data Extraction · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 45/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose FastAF if you need specialized Search & Data Extraction tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose Riveter if your workspace requires Search & Data Extraction integration with remote web transport. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
F
Choose FastAF when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Search & Data Extraction domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
R
Choose Riveter when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Search & Data Extraction domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
FastAF Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Riveter 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).
FastAF Configuration
Riveter Configuration