Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Ruv Swarm vs TrustyCap
In-depth architectural comparison of the Ruv Swarm and TrustyCap 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
Ruv Swarm
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 49/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
TrustyCap
Developer Tools · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 40/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Ruv Swarm if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose TrustyCap if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with remote web transport. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's
mcpServers manifest.Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
R
Choose Ruv Swarm 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).
T
Choose TrustyCap 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).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
Ruv Swarm Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
TrustyCap 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).
Ruv Swarm Configuration
TrustyCap Configuration