comparison
UMT vs mcp-get vs supergateway
These tools solve different problems and honestly compose well together. Here's the breakdown — written by the UMT team, so check the repos yourself.
| UMT | mcp-get | supergateway | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | Monorepo of 28 MCP servers + CLI + registry | CLI to search & install MCP servers from directories | Runs stdio MCP servers over SSE/WebSocket |
| Ships servers itself | Yes — 28 production-focused servers | No — indexes other repos | No — transport bridge only |
| Transports | stdio, SSE, MCP 2026-07-28 streamable HTTP | n/a (installs whatever the server supports) | stdio → SSE/WebSocket |
| Config generation | Yes — Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline targets | Partial — install + run hints | Manual flags |
| Diagnostics | umt doctor — env checks per server | No | No |
| Deterministic workflows | Yes — umt workflow validate | No | No |
| License | MIT | Open source | Open source |
When to pick what
UMT
You want one maintained place for the servers themselves — install, config, run, and diagnostics in a single CLI.
mcp-get
You're browsing the wider ecosystem and want a search engine for community servers across many repos.
supergateway
You have one stdio-only server and need it on SSE/WebSocket right now, no monorepo required.