Head to head
MCP Server vs Site Audit
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Web tools for AI agents: scrape pages to Markdown, audit SEO, detect tech stacks, check sitemaps
Full listingNo reviews yet
Discover a site's pages from its sitemap and sample them for WCAG and prompt-injection risk.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours MCP Server (89/100 against 69). MCP Server has noticeably more public adoption.
| MCP Server | Site Audit | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A89/100 | C69/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | New |
| GitHub stars | 0 | – |
| Downloads / week | 37 | – |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | Yes |
| Tools | 7 | 1 |
| Write actions | 1 | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | — |
| Last release | 2026-09-08 | — |
| Category | SEO | SEO |