Future Video Studio vs Marzban MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Future Video Studio and Marzban MCP 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?

F

Choose Future Video Studio 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: fvs_submit_render, fvs_create_paid_render_quote, fvs_get_render_status.

Explore Future Video Studio Details

Choose Marzban MCP 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).

Explore Marzban MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	F Future Video Studio Developer Tools	Marzban MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Create and manage cinematic AI video renders through the Future Video Studio Agent API.	Manage Marzban panels through the Model Context Protocol.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
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": {
    "future-video-studio-2": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "future-video-studio-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons