Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Threatfox vs WOCLUB Protocol Gym
In-depth architectural comparison of the Threatfox and WOCLUB Protocol Gym 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
Threatfox
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 33/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
WOCLUB Protocol Gym
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 33/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Threatfox if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose WOCLUB Protocol Gym 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?
T
Choose Threatfox 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).
W
Choose WOCLUB Protocol Gym 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
Threatfox Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
WOCLUB Protocol Gym 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).
Threatfox Configuration
WOCLUB Protocol Gym Configuration