Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Gringo Funnels vs Formasty
In-depth architectural comparison of the Gringo Funnels and Formasty 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
Gringo Funnels
Developer Tools · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 42/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Formasty
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Gringo Funnels if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose Formasty if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
G
Choose Gringo Funnels when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
F
Choose Formasty when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
- You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
Gringo Funnels Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Formasty 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).
Gringo Funnels Configuration
Formasty Configuration
Frequently Asked Questions
More alternatives to Gringo FunnelsMore alternatives to FormastyDeveloper Tools category hubCanonical compare URL