Kitewright vs Parallel Browser MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Kitewright and Parallel Browser 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 Kitewright 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).

Explore Kitewright Details

Choose Parallel Browser MCP 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).

Explore Parallel Browser MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Kitewright kitewright Developer Tools	Parallel Browser MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Lightweight browser automation for AI agents: navigate, screenshot, extract, PDF. One small binary.	MCP server for parallel browser automation across multiple providers.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

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-303": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@kitewright/mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "parallel-browser-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "parallel-browser-mcp@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons