Hares — MCP security scanner vs Husk

In-depth architectural comparison of the Hares — MCP security scanner and Husk 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 Hares — MCP security scanner 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 Hares — MCP security scanner Details

Choose Husk 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 Husk Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Hares — MCP security scanner Security	Husk Security
Summary	Multi-layer security scanner for MCP servers and agent skills (injection, exfiltration)	Local-first defensive scanner for vulnerable dependencies, leaked secrets, and risky agent configs
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": {
    "hares-mcp-security-scanner": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@alihashim313/hares"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "husk": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "husk"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons