In-depth architectural comparison of the Gatekeeper and Scopeblind Gateway 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
Scopeblind Gateway
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 52/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Gatekeeper if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Scopeblind Gateway 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.
Security gateway that wraps any MCP server with per-tool policies, approval gates, and optional Ed25519-signed receipts. Shadow mode logs every tool call; enforce mode blocks, rate-limits, or requires approval.
Gatekeeper is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Scopeblind Gateway belongs to Security using local stdio subprocess. Select Gatekeeper when you need capabilities focused on security and Scopeblind Gateway when you require tools for security.