Package Risk vs Forage

In-depth architectural comparison of the Package Risk and Forage 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 Package Risk 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).

Explore Package Risk Details

F

Choose Forage 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).

Explore Forage Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Package Risk Developer Tools	F Forage Developer Tools
Summary	Package risk checks: maintenance, licence, advisories. Paid per call in USDC, no signup.	Web search and URL-to-markdown for agents. Pay per call in USDC on Base, no signup.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
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": {
    "package-risk": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@makosdav/package-risk-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "forage": {
      "url": "https://forage.cash"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons