Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
MCP Gateway vs Codex Octopus
In-depth architectural comparison of the MCP Gateway and Codex Octopus 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
MCP Gateway
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Codex Octopus
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 47/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose MCP Gateway if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Codex Octopus 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?
M
Choose MCP Gateway 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).
C
Choose Codex Octopus 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
MCP Gateway Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Codex Octopus 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).
MCP Gateway Configuration
Codex Octopus Configuration
Frequently Asked Questions
More alternatives to MCP GatewayMore alternatives to Codex OctopusDeveloper Tools category hubCanonical compare URL