Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Openpost vs TimeToPost
In-depth architectural comparison of the Openpost and TimeToPost 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
Openpost
Developer Tools · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 44/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
TimeToPost
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Openpost if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose TimeToPost 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?
O
Choose Openpost when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
T
Choose TimeToPost 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
Openpost Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
TimeToPost 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).
Openpost Configuration
TimeToPost Configuration