Kody vs Mcpoauthscopegate MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Kody and Mcpoauthscopegate MCP 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 Kody 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 Kody Details

Choose Mcpoauthscopegate MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: inspect_oauth_scope_risk, request_scope_approval, issue_consent_receipt.

Explore Mcpoauthscopegate MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Kody Security	Mcpoauthscopegate MCP Security
Summary	Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.	OAuth scope approvals and consent receipts for remote MCP servers.
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": {
    "kody": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "create-epicflare"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcpoauthscopegate-mcp": {
      "url": "https://mcpoauthscopegate.clauxel.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons