Butterbase Oss vs Lodekeep MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Butterbase Oss and Lodekeep 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 Butterbase Oss when:

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

Explore Butterbase Oss Details

L

Choose Lodekeep MCP when:

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

Explore Lodekeep MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Butterbase Oss butterbase-ai Knowledge & Memory	L Lodekeep MCP Knowledge & Memory
Summary	Butterbase MCP server — manage your backend: schemas, auth, functions, storage, RAG, deploys.	Portable memory for AI agents: capture once, recall across Claude, Cursor, and any MCP client.
Category & Scope	Knowledge & Memory	Knowledge & Memory

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": {
    "mcp-285": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@butterbase/mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "memory-5": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "memory-5"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons