Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
File Storage vs MCP Upload
In-depth architectural comparison of the File Storage and MCP Upload 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
File Storage
Developer Tools · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
MCP Upload
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 47/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose File Storage if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose MCP Upload 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?
F
Choose File Storage 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).
M
Choose MCP Upload 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).
- Primary tools included: upload_file, upload_from_sandbox, get_file.
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
File Storage Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
MCP Upload Tools (4)
upload_file
Upload by host path or inline content
upload_from_sandbox
Returns curl command for sandbox uploads
get_file
Get file metadata and permalink
get_pricing
Current storage tier pricing
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).
File Storage Configuration
MCP Upload Configuration