MCP Safeguard vs WORKS Public Verifier

In-depth architectural comparison of the MCP Safeguard and WORKS Public Verifier 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?

M

Choose MCP Safeguard when:

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

Explore MCP Safeguard Details

Choose WORKS Public Verifier when:

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

Explore WORKS Public Verifier Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	M MCP Safeguard Version Control	WORKS Public Verifier Version Control
Summary	MCP server security scanner: detects prompt injection, credential leaks, SSRF, tool poisoning.	Independent static verification for exact immutable public GitHub commits.
Category & Scope	Version Control	Version Control

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-safeguard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-safeguard"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "works-public-verifier": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "github:DYZCODE/works-plugins"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons