# Git (MCP reference server) vs Sourcegraph MCP Server (slim)

> Sourcegraph MCP Server scores 57.5 (C) on agent readiness against Git (MCP reference server)'s 51.9 (D), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Git (MCP reference server) leads on reliability and payments & pricing. Both do code git. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent…

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/git-reference-server-vs-sourcegraph-mcp.md (~2,150 tokens) · this version ~730 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/git-reference-server-vs-sourcegraph-mcp.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/git-reference-server-vs-sourcegraph-mcp
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · Updated: 2026-10-08

Sourcegraph MCP Server scores 57.5 (C) on agent readiness against Git (MCP reference server)'s 51.9 (D), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Git (MCP reference server) leads on reliability and payments & pricing. Both do code git.

- Git (MCP reference server): D 51.9, rank #499 of 629 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/git-reference-server.min.md
- Sourcegraph MCP Server: C 57.5, rank #420 of 629 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/sourcegraph-mcp.min.md
- Git (MCP reference server), good for Local commit loops in a sandboxed checkout where an agent stages, commits and branches. Ahead on Reliability, 55 against 25; Payments & pricing, 60 against 15. Also No key needed to call it; Runs on your own machine; Open source.
- Sourcegraph MCP Server, good for A company that already runs Sourcegraph and wants agents to search and navigate many repositories with compiler-accurate definitions and references. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 71 against 61; Security & auth, 76 against 37; Maintenance & community, 83 against 39; Transparency & trust, 78 against 73. Also No incidents deducted, where Git (MCP reference server) loses 4 points for them.

| Category | Git (MCP reference server) | Sourcegraph MCP Server |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 55 | 25 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 61 | 71 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 69 | 72 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 37 | 76 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 60 | 15 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 39 | 83 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 73 | 78 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Git (MCP reference server) | Sourcegraph MCP Server |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | MCP project (reference servers) | Sourcegraph, Inc. |
| Transports | stdio | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | None | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Licence | MIT and Apache-2.0 | Proprietary. The server is part of the Sourcegraph Enterprise product under the Sourcegraph Terms of Service |
| Tools exposed | 12 | 16 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | `io.github.sourcegraph/mcp` |
| Last release | 2026-08-18 | 2026-09-17 |
| Terms last updated | 2021-09-08 | 2026-07-22 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2023-03-15 | 2026-06-12 |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | yes, with an opt-out |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | yes |
| Popularity | 90k stars, 41k PyPI/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | none |