Mcacp vs WebUplink

In-depth architectural comparison of the Mcacp and WebUplink 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 Mcacp 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: list_installed_agents, registry_search, agent_install.

Explore Mcacp Details

Choose WebUplink 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: browse, close_session.

Explore WebUplink Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Mcacp Developer Tools	WebUplink Developer Tools
Summary	MCP-to-ACP bridge — let any MCP client drive ACP coding agents	Give any MCP client the ability to browse and interact with the web via WebUplink.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
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": {
    "mcacp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcacp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons