Klaws — Korean compliance risk scanner vs Lexvibe

In-depth architectural comparison of the Klaws — Korean compliance risk scanner and Lexvibe 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 Klaws — Korean compliance risk scanner when:

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

Explore Klaws — Korean compliance risk scanner Details

Choose Lexvibe when:

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

Explore Lexvibe Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Klaws — Korean compliance risk scanner Legal	Lexvibe Legal
Summary	Scan code for Korean compliance risks — PIPA/개인정보보호법, Network Act, Credit Info. Not legal advice.	One-step legal compliance for vibe-coded apps: privacy, terms, cookie banner and EU AI Act check.
Category & Scope	Legal	Legal

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": {
    "klaws-korean-compliance-risk-scanner": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "klaws-korean-compliance-risk-scanner"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "lexvibe-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@lexvibe/mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons