Sentinel Scan vs Yotta Verify MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Sentinel Scan and Yotta Verify 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 Sentinel Scan 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 Sentinel Scan Details

Choose Yotta Verify 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).
• Primary tools included: scan_skill, generate_badge, gate_check.

Explore Yotta Verify MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Sentinel Scan Developer Tools	Yotta Verify MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Static, offline OWASP-mapped security scanner for MCP server manifests. No network/LLM calls.	Pre-install security scanner for AI agent skills (local stdio MCP). Offline static scan; no upload.
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": {
    "sentinel-scan": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "sentinel-scan-cli"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "yotta-verify-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@yottameta/yotta-verify-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons