GBG Loqate Reach vs Byteplant MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the GBG Loqate Reach and Byteplant 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?

Choose GBG Loqate Reach when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore GBG Loqate Reach Details

Choose Byteplant MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Byteplant MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	GBG Loqate Reach Communication	Byteplant MCP Communication
Summary	Verify addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers with confidence scores.	An MCP server that provides Email, Phone and Address Validation Services from Byteplant
Category & Scope	Communication	Communication
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": {
    "gbg-loqate-reach": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "gbg-loqate-reach"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "byteplant-mcp": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "byteplant-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons