Payram Helper MCP Server vs SiteGuardian

In-depth architectural comparison of the Payram Helper MCP Server and SiteGuardian 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 Payram Helper MCP Server 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 Payram Helper MCP Server Details

Choose SiteGuardian 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 SiteGuardian Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Payram Helper MCP Server Developer Tools	SiteGuardian Developer Tools
Summary	Remote MCP server to integrate and validate self-hosted Payram deployments.	EU-hosted website monitoring + 17-framework compliance MCP. One anonymous tool, four authenticated.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

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": {
    "payram-helper-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "siteguardian": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "siteguardian"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons