GhostKey — Route Paid APIs with x402 vs Docfork MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the GhostKey — Route Paid APIs with x402 and Docfork 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?

G

Choose GhostKey — Route Paid APIs with x402 when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Version Control domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore GhostKey — Route Paid APIs with x402 Details

Choose Docfork MCP when:

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

Explore Docfork MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	G GhostKey — Route Paid APIs with x402 Version Control	Docfork MCP Version Control
Summary
Category & Scope	Version Control	Version Control
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": {
    "ghostkey-route-paid-apis-with-x402": {
      "url": "https://gitlab.com/timothy.walton45/sml-portfolio"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "docfork-mcp-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "dgrep"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons