MCP Comparison · 2026
Name.com vs Porkbun (MCP archived) MCP Server
Comparing Name.com and Porkbun (MCP archived) as MCP servers? Name.com (manage name.com domains) is best when sandbox-first registration flows. Porkbun (MCP archived) (manage porkbun domains) is best when auditing dns without write risk. Both run as Model Context Protocol servers and can coexist in the same client. Updated 2026.
Side-by-side specs
Pulled from each MCP's verified fact sheet.
| Name.com | Porkbun (MCP archived) | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary function | Manage Name.com Domains | Manage Porkbun Domains |
| Maintainer | Name.com | major (community) |
| Pricing | Freemium | Free |
| Setup complexity | Low · ~5 min | Medium · ~10 min |
| Transport | stdio | stdio, SSE |
| Auth model | API key | API key |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | Python |
| Latest version | latest | latest |
| Compatible clients | Claude, Cursor, Any MCP-compatible client, Name.com accounts | Claude, Cursor, Any MCP-compatible client, Porkbun accounts |
| Last verified | 2026-05-27 | 2026-05-27 |
Which one should you pick?
Decision rubric drawn from each MCP's documented strengths.
Choose Name.com
- Sandbox-first registration flows
- DNS record CRUD
- Domain transfers
Choose Porkbun (MCP archived)
- Auditing DNS without write risk
- DNSSEC management
- SSL bundle retrieval
Pick something else if…
- Operations outside Name.com's API surface
- Workflows requiring official vendor support
Feature breakdown
Key capabilities each server ships out of the box.
Name.com
- Vendor-published MCP repo
- Auto-generated from Name.com OpenAPI
- Defaults to test environment (mcp.dev.name.com)
- `NAME_USERNAME` + `NAME_TOKEN` auth
- MIT, TypeScript
Porkbun (MCP archived)
- Read-only by default — writes require `--get-muddy`
- DNS (8 fns), Domains (7), DNSSEC (3), SSL retrieve
- API key + secret auth
- MIT, Python
- stdio + SSE transports
Install snippets
Open the detail page for ready-to-paste config for every major client.
FAQ
Name.com vs Porkbun (MCP archived): which MCP server should I use?
Pick Name.com when sandbox-first registration flows. Pick Porkbun (MCP archived) when auditing dns without write risk. Name.com is built for manage name.com domains, while Porkbun (MCP archived) focuses on manage porkbun domains.
Can I run both Name.com and Porkbun (MCP archived) together?
Yes. MCP clients run each server as a separate process and surface every server's tools simultaneously, so you can install both and let your agent decide which to call. Be deliberate with auth scopes when stacking servers.
Which is easier to set up, Name.com or Porkbun (MCP archived)?
Name.com has the lighter setup. Name.com reports low complexity (~5 min); Porkbun (MCP archived) reports medium complexity (~10 min).
More Name.com comparisons
Browse all Domains MCPs? See the full ranked list →