Rock's Apify Utility Actors vs Google Workspace

In-depth architectural comparison of the Rock's Apify Utility Actors and Google Workspace 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?

R

Choose Rock's Apify Utility Actors when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Rock's Apify Utility Actors Details

Choose Google Workspace when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Communication domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Google Workspace Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	R Rock's Apify Utility Actors Communication	Google Workspace Communication
Summary	Seven pay-per-event Apify Actors (PDF/CSV/links/sitemap/email/phone/VAT) as MCP tools.	Give AI agents access to Gmail, Calendar, Drive, and more — multi-account, manifest-driven
Category & Scope	Communication	Communication

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": {
    "rock-s-apify-utility-actors": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "rock-s-apify-utility-actors"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "google-workspace-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@aaronsb/google-workspace-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons