SpanHound vs Scrivener MCP
A side-by-side look at the SpanHound and Scrivener MCP MCP servers: transport, auth, tools, quality signals, and the config to install either one in Claude, Cursor, Windsurf or VS Code.
S
SpanHoundDeveloper ToolsCapture local agent traces and inspect failures, approvals, and run comparisons.47FairAuth: no auth requiredVerdict: choose SpanHound for developer tools work; choose Scrivener MCP for knowledge & memory as a local process. You can also run both side by side in one mcpServers block.
Which MCP server should you choose?
SChoose SpanHound when
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
- Its auth model fits you: No auth required.
- You want tools like
list_runs, run_summary, span_tree.
Choose Scrivener MCP when
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
- You prefer a local stdio subprocess transport.
- Its auth model fits you: No auth required.
Feature & specification comparison
Rows where the two servers differ are marked.
| Spec | S SpanHound | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Developer Tools | Knowledge & Memory |
| Quality signal | 47/100 · Fair | 61/100 · Good |
| Install command | Not confirmed yet | Confirmed |
| Transport | — | Local subprocess (stdio) |
| Auth | No auth required | No auth required |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Required env vars | None listed | None listed |
| Verified owner | Community listing | Community listing |
| GitHub stars | 0 | 67 |
| Directory activity | 0 views 0 installs 0 upvotes | 18 views 12 installs 6 upvotes |
| Tools | 12 | Not listed |
| Full listing | View SpanHound | View Scrivener MCP |
Tools & capabilities
SpanHound tools 12
list_runsStarting out — recent runs with task, model, duration, cost, decision countsrun_summaryOne run at a glance (accepts trace-id prefix)span_tree"What did the agent actually do?" — nested shape of the runslowest_spans"Why was it slow?" — top-k spans by durationapproval_logHITL audit — every approve/deny/**edit**, who decided, and *the rationale*token_usageCost questions — aggregated across runs or per-runsearch_spansFind spans by tool name, file path, "denied", …failure_reportFind actionable, bounded, redacted errors and failed tool calls.tool_statsRank tools by volume, error rate, denials, and latency.security_auditAudit caller identity, tenant, server provenance, risk, and approval evidence.recent_activityPoll new spans with a cursor while a run is active.compare_runsCompare selected traces for regressions across models or versions.
Scrivener MCP tools
No tool names declared yet. Check the project README from the listing page.
Ready-to-paste client configs
Paste either block (or both) into your client config, e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json. We only show a config when the install command is confirmed.
SpanHound
No confirmed install command for SpanHound yet — follow the setup steps linked from its listing page rather than a guessed package name.
Scrivener MCP
{
"mcpServers": {
"writerslogic-scrivener-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"scrivener-setup"
]
}
}
}
Frequently asked questions
SpanHound is categorized under Developer Tools and uses an install path we have not confirmed yet. Scrivener MCP belongs to Knowledge & Memory and uses a local stdio subprocess. Pick SpanHound for developer tools work and Scrivener MCP for knowledge & memory.
Copy the mcpServers block from the config section on this page into your client's config (for example claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json), then fully restart the client. SpanHound has no confirmed install command yet — follow its own setup instructions.
SpanHound is listed as free. Auth: no auth required. Scrivener MCP is listed as free. Auth: no auth required. If a server needs environment variables such as API keys, define them under the env key in your client's MCP config.
Yes. MCP clients support multiple servers: add spanhound and writerslogic-scrivener-mcp as separate keys in the same mcpServers object, and your assistant will call tools from either one.
On AllMCPs, SpanHound has a quality signal of 47/100 (Fair) with 0 views, 0 installs and 0 GitHub stars. Scrivener MCP has 61/100 (Good) with 18 views, 12 installs and 67 GitHub stars.
