ProofSlip vs Quantum OpenQASM MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the ProofSlip and Quantum OpenQASM MCP 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 ProofSlip 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 ProofSlip Details

Choose Quantum OpenQASM MCP 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 Quantum OpenQASM MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	ProofSlip Developer Tools	Quantum OpenQASM MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Receipt-based verification for AI agent workflows — create, verify, and poll ephemeral proof objects	IBM Quantum OpenQASM 2.0 MCP — list backends, submit QASM, poll jobs, get histograms.
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": {
    "proofslip": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "quantum-openqasm-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "quantum-openqasm-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons