Head to head · Hitl approve · October 2026 research run
Permit MCP Gateway vs Pushary
Permit MCP Gateway has a score of 54.5 (C) against Pushary's 51.4 (D). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is reliability, 27 points.
Which one, for what
Pick Permit MCP Gateway for
- reliability (+27)
- agent ergonomics (+7)
- security & auth (+16)
Pick Pushary for
- schema & documentation (+20)
- maintenance & community (+17)
- transparency & trust (+18)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Permit MCP Gateway | Pushary | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 47 | 20 | Permit MCP Gateway +27 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 53 | 73 | Pushary +20 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 83 | 76 | Permit MCP Gateway +7 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 80 | 64 | Permit MCP Gateway +16 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 10 | 10 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 43 | 60 | Pushary +17 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 45 | 63 | Pushary +18 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 54.5 · C | 51.4 · D |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Permit MCP Gateway | Pushary |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Model platform | MCP server |
| Vendor | Permit.io | Pushary |
| Hosted endpoint | https://{subdomain}.agent.security/mcp | https://pushary.com/api/mcp/mcp |
| Transports | Streamable HTTP | Streamable HTTP, SSE (legacy) |
| Auth | OAuth | API key |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | MIT (skill, hooks and adapters) |
| Tools exposed | none | 6 |
| 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 | no | no |
| MCP registry | not listed | io.github.Pushary/pushary |
| Last release | none | 2026-10-01 |
| Popularity | none | none |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | 2.5/5 (2) |
Verdicts
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.
Pushary
Six small tools with a detailed skill that says when to ask, when to notify and when to stay quiet. No free plan, and the 3-day trial takes a card up front.
Before you call either
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
Pushary
- Read
answered,statusandhandoffActionon every result, and never treat a timeout as approval - Expect
ask_userto return at once withanswered: falsewhen the user's mode is notify-only or terminal-only - Poll
wait_for_answeronce (it waits at most 55 seconds), then follow the handoff instead of looping - Cancel a live question with
cancel_questionbefore asking the same thing in chat - Group open decisions into one
selectquestion, since each push interrupts the user
Other comparisons with Permit MCP Gateway or Pushary
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/permit-mcp-gateway.json·/api/v1/tools/pushary.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/permit-mcp-gateway-vs-pushary.md