Future Video Studio vs ProofSlip

In-depth architectural comparison of the Future Video Studio and ProofSlip 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 ProofSlip 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 ProofSlip Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	F Future Video Studio Developer Tools	ProofSlip Developer Tools
Summary	Create and manage cinematic AI video renders through the Future Video Studio Agent API.	Receipt-based verification for AI agent workflows — create, verify, and poll ephemeral proof objects
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": {
    "proofslip": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons