Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
RepoContext vs Citadel MCP
In-depth architectural comparison of the RepoContext and Citadel 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.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
RepoContext
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 39/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Citadel MCP
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 39/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose RepoContext if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Citadel MCP 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?
R
Choose RepoContext 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).
C
Choose Citadel 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).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
RepoContext Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Citadel MCP 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).
RepoContext Configuration
Citadel MCP Configuration
Frequently Asked Questions
More alternatives to RepoContextMore alternatives to Citadel MCPDeveloper Tools category hubCanonical compare URL