In-depth architectural comparison of the Gatekeeper and Platform 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: 41/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Platform
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 56/100 (Good) | Auth: API Key required
Verdict Summary: Choose Gatekeeper if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Platform 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).
Primary tools included: Policy-based allow, deny, and approval decisions, Sensitive-boundary rule pack, USD, token, and call budgets.
Run MCP tool calls through Runestone Gatekeeper — policy enforcement, human approval, audit.
Governance proxy for MCP servers. Wraps any upstream server with policy evaluation, human approval workflows, and hash-chain audit trails. 18+ framework integrations. Apache 2.0 SDK.
Gatekeeper is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Platform belongs to Security using local stdio subprocess. Select Gatekeeper when you need capabilities focused on security and Platform when you require tools for security.