Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
License vs Siteaudit
In-depth architectural comparison of the License and Siteaudit 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
License
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 52/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Siteaudit
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 41/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose License if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Siteaudit 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?
L
Choose License 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: scan_licenses, quick_check, classify_license.
S
Choose Siteaudit 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: audit_site, quick_check, audit_accessibility.
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
License Tools (4)
scan_licenses
Full license scan with conflict detection
quick_check
Risk breakdown and conflict count
classify_license
Classify any license string
find_copyleft
Find all copyleft dependencies
Siteaudit Tools (6)
audit_site
Full comprehensive audit across all 5 categories
quick_check
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).
License Configuration
Siteaudit Configuration