Har Forensics MCP vs MCP Audit

In-depth architectural comparison of the Har Forensics MCP and MCP Audit 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 Har Forensics MCP 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: find_captures, analyze_har, har_brief.

Explore Har Forensics MCP Details

Choose MCP Audit 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).

Explore MCP Audit Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Har Forensics MCP Security	MCP Audit Security
Summary	Audit a .har capture: third-party risk, leaked credentials, JWT checks, redaction. No network calls.	Transparent audit proxy for MCP servers: logs every tool call, flags poisoning and rug pulls.
Category & Scope	Security	Security
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": {
    "har-forensics-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "har-forensics-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-audit-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons