Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Screenify Studio vs Dashclaw
In-depth architectural comparison of the Screenify Studio and Dashclaw 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
Screenify Studio
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 33/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Dashclaw
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 51/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Screenify Studio if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Dashclaw 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?
S
Choose Screenify Studio 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).
D
Choose Dashclaw 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
Screenify Studio Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Dashclaw 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).
Screenify Studio Configuration
Dashclaw Configuration
Frequently Asked Questions
More alternatives to Screenify StudioMore alternatives to DashclawDeveloper Tools category hubCanonical compare URL