Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Kwork vs Koongo
In-depth architectural comparison of the Kwork and Koongo 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
Kwork
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 49/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Koongo
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 37/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Kwork if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Koongo if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
K
Choose Kwork 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).
- Primary tools included: account_status, get_connects, discover_projects.
K
Choose Koongo 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).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
Kwork Tools (4)
account_status
Фактический account ID, binding и готовность writes
get_connects
Активные и общие коннекты
discover_projects
favorites`, `all` или `category_ids`, фильтры и opaque cursor
list_notifications
Полные группы уведомлений
Koongo Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
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).
Kwork Configuration
Koongo Configuration