In-depth architectural comparison of the Hares — MCP security scanner and Mcp Bastion 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
Hares — MCP security scanner
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 27/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Mcp Bastion
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 47/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Hares — MCP security scanner if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Mcp Bastion if your workspace requires Security integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
H
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).
Hares — MCP security scanner is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Mcp Bastion belongs to Security using local stdio subprocess. Select Hares — MCP security scanner when you need capabilities focused on security and Mcp Bastion when you require tools for security.