Filesystem vs Wcgw

In-depth architectural comparison of the Filesystem and Wcgw 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 Filesystem when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Other Tools and Integrations domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Secure file read and write operations, Configurable access control policies, Reference implementation for MCP file handling.

Explore Filesystem Details

Choose Wcgw when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Other Tools and Integrations domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Initialize, BashCommand, ReadFiles.

Explore Wcgw Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Filesystem VerifiedOther Tools and Integrations	Wcgw rusiaaman Other Tools and Integrations
Summary	Secure file operations with configurable access controls.	Autonomous shell execution, computer control and coding agent. (Mac)
Category & Scope	Other Tools and Integrations

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": {
    "filesystem": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/server-memory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "rusiaaman-wcgw": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/inspector@0.1.7"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons