MCP Ts Core vs Physbound

In-depth architectural comparison of the MCP Ts Core and Physbound 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 Ts Core when:

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

Explore MCP Ts Core Details

Choose Physbound when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Monitoring domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: rf_link_budget, shannon_hartley, noise_floor.

Explore Physbound Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	MCP Ts Core Monitoring	Physbound Monitoring
Summary	TypeScript framework for building MCP servers with declarative definitions and observability.	Physical Layer Linter — validates RF link budgets, Shannon capacity, and noise floors.
Category & Scope	Monitoring	Monitoring
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-ts-core": {
      "command": "bunx",
      "args": [
        "@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "physbound": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "physbound"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons