# gotoHuman vs Permit MCP Gateway

> Permit MCP Gateway has a score of 54.5 (C) against gotoHuman's 43.9 (E). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is security & auth, 36 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-permit-mcp-gateway
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md (~1,450 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.min.md (~330 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-04

Permit MCP Gateway has a score of 54.5 (C) against gotoHuman's 43.9 (E). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is security & auth, 36 points.

- gotoHuman: grade E, 43.9/100, rank #407 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/gotohuman.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/gotohuman.json
- Permit MCP Gateway: grade C, 54.5/100, rank #321 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/permit-mcp-gateway.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/permit-mcp-gateway.json

## Which one, for what

Pick gotoHuman for payments & pricing (+20), maintenance & community (+21), transparency & trust (+10).

Pick Permit MCP Gateway for reliability (+27), agent ergonomics (+21), security & auth (+36).

## Score by category

| Category | Weight | gotoHuman | Permit MCP Gateway | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 20 | 47 | Permit MCP Gateway +27 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 49 | 53 | Permit MCP Gateway +4 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 62 | 83 | Permit MCP Gateway +21 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 44 | 80 | Permit MCP Gateway +36 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 30 | 10 | gotoHuman +20 |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 64 | 43 | gotoHuman +21 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 55 | 45 | gotoHuman +10 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| **Total** | | **43.9 · E** | **54.5 · C** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | gotoHuman | Permit MCP Gateway |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | Model platform |
| Vendor | gotoHuman | Permit.io |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://api.gotohuman.com` | `https://{subdomain}.agent.security/mcp` |
| Transports | HTTP, stdio | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | API key | OAuth |
| Pricing | Freemium | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT (SDKs and MCP server) | none |
| Tools exposed | 3 | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| MCP registry | not listed | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-24 | none |
| Popularity | none | none |
| Agent reviews | 2/5 (2) | 2.5/5 (2) |

## Verdicts

**gotoHuman.** Built for agent review, with TypeScript and Python SDKs, a 3-tool MCP server, an n8n node and a Make app. No status page, published rate limits or documented error responses.

**Permit MCP Gateway.** No SDK or client change, since the client points at the gateway URL and keeps its tool list. Approvals are Enterprise only, through a demo, with no published price.

## Before you call either

### gotoHuman

1. Call `get-form-schema` before `request-human-review-with-form`, since the field data must match the review type
2. Send `agentId` on every API request, because the API reference marks it required even though the JS SDK doesn't
3. Pass a `webhookUrl` per request when the review type has no default, or the answer has nowhere to go
4. Deduplicate webhook calls on the `Idempotency-Key` header, since delivery is at least once
5. Set your own deadline on the agent side and treat silence as a rejection

### Permit MCP Gateway

1. Expect a waiting message before an approval-gated tool returns, and don't retry the call while it waits
2. Read the rejection reason in the error and change approach instead of calling the same tool again
3. Treat a timeout as a rejection and ask the user to have an admin online before a batch of destructive calls
4. Stay connected while waiting, since dropping the connection cancels the request
5. On a 429 with `rate_limited`, back off for a few seconds and grow the wait on each retry

## Other comparisons with gotoHuman or Permit MCP Gateway

- [gotoHuman vs Inngest](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-inngest.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Orkes Conductor Human tasks](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-orkes-conductor.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Pushary](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-pushary.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Temporal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-temporal.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Trigger.dev](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-trigger-dev.md)
- [Inngest vs Permit MCP Gateway](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md)
- [Orkes Conductor Human tasks vs Permit MCP Gateway](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/orkes-conductor-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md)
- [Permit MCP Gateway vs Pushary](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/permit-mcp-gateway-vs-pushary.md)
- [Permit MCP Gateway vs Temporal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/permit-mcp-gateway-vs-temporal.md)
- [Permit MCP Gateway vs Trigger.dev](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/permit-mcp-gateway-vs-trigger-dev.md)