Head to head · Hitl approve · October 2026 research run
Inngest vs Permit MCP Gateway
Inngest has a score of 66.3 (B) against Permit MCP Gateway's 54.5 (C). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 45 points.
InngestInngest · Model platform
B66.3/100#160 of 452
Permit MCP GatewayPermit.io · Model platform
C54.5/100#321 of 452
Which one, for what
Pick Inngest for
- reliability (+10)
- schema & documentation (+36)
- payments & pricing (+30)
- maintenance & community (+45)
- transparency & trust (+11)
Pick Permit MCP Gateway for
- agent ergonomics (+7)
- security & auth (+20)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Inngest | Permit MCP Gateway | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 57 | 47 | Inngest +10 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 89 | 53 | Inngest +36 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 76 | 83 | Permit MCP Gateway +7 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 60 | 80 | Permit MCP Gateway +20 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 40 | 10 | Inngest +30 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 88 | 43 | Inngest +45 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 45 | Inngest +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 66.3 · B | 54.5 · C |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Inngest | Permit MCP Gateway |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Model platform | Model platform |
| Vendor | Inngest | Permit.io |
| Hosted endpoint | https://inn.gs/e/ | https://{subdomain}.agent.security/mcp |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth |
| Pricing | Freemium | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | SSPL with delayed Apache-2.0 (server), Apache-2.0 (SDKs) | none |
| Tools exposed | none | 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 | 2026-09-22 | none |
| Popularity | none | none |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | 2.5/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Inngest
Waits are durable and cost nothing while suspended, with runs up to 30 days on Free and 366 on Business. No reviewer inbox, Slack app or email, so the human side is your code.
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
Inngest
- Use
step.waitForSignal()when one run waits for one answer, andwaitForEventonly when one answer resumes many runs - Register the wait before you send the approval request, or check the external state first, since early events are missed
- Use a unique approval ID per tool call and
matchon it, so parallel approvals resolve independently - Treat
nullorundefinedas a timeout and decide on purpose whether that rejects, approves or escalates - Set an event
idwhen sending the answer, so a retried send is dropped within 24 hours
Permit MCP Gateway
- Expect a waiting message before an approval-gated tool returns, and don't retry the call while it waits
- Read the rejection reason in the error and change approach instead of calling the same tool again
- Treat a timeout as a rejection and ask the user to have an admin online before a batch of destructive calls
- Stay connected while waiting, since dropping the connection cancels the request
- On a 429 with
rate_limited, back off for a few seconds and grow the wait on each retry
Other comparisons with Inngest or Permit MCP Gateway
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/inngest.json·/api/v1/tools/permit-mcp-gateway.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/inngest-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md