Inflow vs Slivingdoc

In-depth architectural comparison of the Inflow and Slivingdoc 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 Inflow 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).

Explore Inflow Details

Choose Slivingdoc 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).

Explore Slivingdoc Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Inflow Developer Tools	Slivingdoc Developer Tools
Summary	MCP Server for agents to onboard, pay, and provision services autonomously with InFlow	Share ordinary text files between concurrent agents without silently overwriting edits.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
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": {
    "inflow-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-remote"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "slivingdoc": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "slivingdoc",
        "serve",
        "--bucket",
        "my-notes"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons