MCP Scan vs Huntress

In-depth architectural comparison of the MCP Scan and Huntress 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 MCP Scan when:

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

Explore MCP Scan Details

Choose Huntress when:

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

Explore Huntress Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	MCP Scan Security	Huntress Security
Summary	Passive security scanner: audits MCP servers against the OWASP MCP Top 10, graded A-F.	MCP server for Huntress — accounts, organizations, agents, incidents, and reports.
Category & Scope	Security	Security
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": {
    "mcp-scan": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "owasp-mcp-scan"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "huntress-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "github:WYRE-AI/huntress-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons