Mcp Server vs Physbound

In-depth architectural comparison of the Mcp Server and Physbound 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 Mcp Server when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Monitoring domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: log_trace, evaluate_output, get_traces.

Explore Mcp Server Details

P

Choose Physbound when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Monitoring domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Physbound Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Mcp Server iris-eval Monitoring	P Physbound Monitoring
Summary	MCP-native agent evaluation and observability server with trace logging, output quality evaluation, cost tracking, 12 built-in eval rules, real-time dashboard, and PII detection.	Physical Layer Linter — validates RF link budgets, Shannon capacity, and noise floors.
Category & Scope	Monitoring	Monitoring

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": {
    "iris-eval-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@iris-eval/mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons