In-depth architectural comparison of the Gatekeeper and Assay 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
Gatekeeper
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 43/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Assay
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 47/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Gatekeeper if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Assay if your workspace requires Security integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
Choose Gatekeeper when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Primary tools included: Deterministic, fail-closed policy enforcement for MCP tool calls, Offline-verifiable, tamper-evident evidence bundles of decisions and observations, Kernel-level IPv4/TCP egress enforcement via eBPF/LSM and Landlock on Linux.
Run MCP tool calls through Runestone Gatekeeper — policy enforcement, human approval, audit.
Policy-as-code gate for MCP. A fail-closed proxy that denies risky tool calls before they run, produces offline-verifiable evidence bundles of what executed, and enforces IPv4/TCP egress in-kernel via eBPF/LSM and Landlock on Linux. Deterministic and offline-first.
Gatekeeper is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Assay belongs to Security using local stdio subprocess. Select Gatekeeper when you need capabilities focused on security and Assay when you require tools for security.