Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Gmail Postmaster Tools vs Oncofiles
In-depth architectural comparison of the Gmail Postmaster Tools and Oncofiles 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
Gmail Postmaster Tools
Communication · Local stdio
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Oncofiles
Communication · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Gmail Postmaster Tools if you need specialized Communication tools running via a local process. Choose Oncofiles if your workspace requires Communication integration with remote web transport. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
G
Choose Gmail Postmaster Tools 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).
O
Choose Oncofiles when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
Gmail Postmaster Tools Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Oncofiles Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
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).
Gmail Postmaster Tools Configuration
Oncofiles Configuration