codebase-memory-mcp supports 161 languages and trace-mcp supports 81. Does that matter?

Only if your repository contains a language in the gap, which for most teams it does not. trace-mcp's coverage is chosen to span the real-world long tail rather than to win a count. Where trace-mcp goes deeper is per-language and per-framework semantics: route-to-handler, controller-to-template, model-to-table edges that a broader-but-shallower parser does not produce.

Does codebase-memory-mcp have a published benchmark?

Its authors published a preprint (arXiv 2603.27277) reporting 83% answer quality, roughly 10 times fewer tokens and 2.1 times fewer tool calls versus file-by-file exploration across 31 repositories. We have not independently reproduced it, and it is a self-published preprint rather than peer-reviewed third-party work — but it is still more evidence than most peers, trace-mcp included, have put on the table.

codebase-memory-mcp alternative: trace-mcp vs codebase-memory-mcp

Q: How similar are trace-mcp and codebase-memory-mcp?

They are the closest pair in this space. Both parse a repository with tree-sitter into a persistent knowledge graph, both do impact analysis and call-path tracing, both model infrastructure-as-code as graph nodes, and both expose it over MCP. The divergence is what sits on top: trace-mcp adds framework-aware edges, a refactoring engine, security scanning and code-linked decision memory; codebase-memory-mcp goes wider on raw language count and much leaner on advertised tool surface.

Q: Is codebase-memory-mcp cheaper in tokens?

On advertised surface, yes, and by a wide margin. Its 15 tools cost roughly 7K tokens of schema, and its scout and analysis profiles trim that to 7 and 11 tools. trace-mcp advertises 28 tools at roughly 11.6K tokens on the shipped default path — the `minimal` preset, re-measured August 29, 2026; the preset-bypass bug behind the ~50K figure this page used to quote is fixed and closed. A ~1.7× gap remains, and it is still the clearest place this peer leads.

Q: Can either one refactor code, not just read it?

Only trace-mcp. It ships graph-aware rename across files, symbol and file moves with import rewriting, signature changes with call-site updates, AST-based codemods and verified dead-code removal. codebase-memory-mcp is read-only analysis: it will tell an agent what would break, but the agent still edits by hand.

TL;DR. codebase-memory-mcp (DeusData) is the peer closest to trace-mcp’s premise: parse a repository into a persistent knowledge graph and serve it to agents over MCP, instead of letting them re-read files. Both do impact analysis, call-path tracing, cross-service linking and infrastructure-as-code as graph nodes.

The split is depth versus breadth, in both directions. codebase-memory-mcp is broader on languages (161 vs 81) and dramatically leaner on advertised tool cost. trace-mcp is deeper per repository: 87 framework integrations produce edges a language-agnostic parser cannot, and it can act on the graph — rename, move, codemod, remove dead code, scan for vulnerabilities — rather than only describe it.

Head-to-head

Capability	trace-mcp	codebase-memory-mcp
GitHub stars	100	41.0K
Languages	81	161
Framework integrations	✓ 87	✗ (partial REST routes)
Persistent knowledge graph	✓ SQLite + FTS5	✓
Knowledge-graph queries	✓ `graph_query`	✓ Cypher-like
Impact analysis	✓ reverse dependency traversal + decorator filter	✓ `detect_changes`
Call graph	✓ bidirectional	✓ `trace_call_path`
Cross-service / multi-repo	✓ cross-repo API linking	✓ cross-service HTTP linking
IaC as graph nodes	✓ K8s/Kustomize/HCL/Docker, cross-file resolved	✓ K8s/Kustomize/HCL/Docker
Clone / community detection	✓ AST Type-2 subtree hashing, 11 antipatterns	✓ MinHash near-clone, Louvain communities
Refactoring tools	✓ rename, move, signature, AST codemod, extract	✗
Security scanning	✓ OWASP Top-10, type-aware taint, SARIF 2.1.0	✗
Control-flow graph	✓ basic blocks, loop back-edges, try/catch merges	✗
Quality gates in CI	✓ complexity / security / coverage thresholds	✗
Code-linked decision memory	✓ decisions bound to symbol IDs, staleness-verified	partial (`manage_adr` markdown documents)
Runtime trace ingestion	✗	✓ `ingest_traces`
Graph visualization	✓ desktop app	✓ 3D web UI
MCP tools advertised (default)	28 (~11.6K tok); 169 on `full`	15 (~7K tok); profiles: 11 / 7
Supply-chain posture	OpenSSF Scorecard, CodeQL, Semgrep	SLSA L3, VirusTotal, OpenSSF Scorecard
Published benchmark	✗	✓ preprint, not independently reproduced
Written in	TypeScript	C

When to pick codebase-memory-mcp

This is the peer where the honest list is longest, so here it is in full:

Your advertised tool budget is tight. 15 tools at roughly 7K tokens — or 7 with --tool-profile=scout — against trace-mcp’s ~11.6K on the shipped default path (down from ~50K; the preset-bypass bug is fixed and the default is now minimal). If you run several MCP servers in one client and every one of them is competing for the same context window, a ~1.7× difference still matters. This is the clearest place any competitor beats us, and we are not going to pretend otherwise on our own comparison page.
You need a language we do not parse. 161 grammars against 81. If your repo has one in the gap, none of trace-mcp’s depth helps you.
You want evidence before adopting. Its authors published a benchmark preprint (arXiv 2603.27277: 83% answer quality, ~10× fewer tokens, 2.1× fewer tool calls across 31 repositories). We have not reproduced it and it is not peer-reviewed — but trace-mcp has no comparable published number at all.
Supply-chain requirements are strict. SLSA Level 3 provenance plus VirusTotal-scanned reproducible release candidates is a stronger posture than ours, and in a regulated environment that can be the whole decision.
You have runtime traces to fold in. ingest_traces enriches the graph with observed caller/callee counts — dynamic edges static analysis cannot see. trace-mcp has no equivalent.

When to pick trace-mcp

Framework semantics. A graph that knows UserController exists but not that it renders Users/Show.vue via Inertia is missing the edges developers actually reason about. 87 integrations produce route → handler, controller → template, model → table and component edges; a language-agnostic parser produces none of them.
You want the agent to change code. Rename across files with import rewriting, symbol and file moves, signature changes that update call sites, AST-based codemods with metavariable substitution, dead-code removal with orphan-import detection. codebase-memory-mcp is read-only.
Security is part of the job. OWASP Top-10 rules, taint analysis with type-aware pruning, and OASIS-schema-validated SARIF 2.1.0 for CI ingestion.
Memory should be code-linked and verified. manage_adr writes flat markdown documents. trace-mcp binds decisions to symbol IDs, checks at recall time that the linked code still resolves and is unchanged, and surfaces them inside get_change_impact — so a decision about code that was deleted stops being served.
Gates, not just reports. Quality gates with configurable complexity, security and coverage thresholds, plus SARIF output, make the graph a CI participant rather than a chat aid.

FAQ

How similar are trace-mcp and codebase-memory-mcp? The closest pair in this space. Both parse with tree-sitter into a persistent knowledge graph, both do impact analysis and call-path tracing, both model IaC as nodes. The divergence is what sits on top: framework-aware edges, refactoring, security and code-linked memory for trace-mcp; raw language breadth and a much leaner advertised surface for codebase-memory-mcp.

It supports 161 languages and trace-mcp supports 81. Does that matter? Only if your repository contains a language in the gap. trace-mcp’s coverage targets the real-world long tail rather than a count; the depth goes into per-framework semantics instead.

Is codebase-memory-mcp cheaper in tokens? On advertised surface, yes — ~7K against our ~11.6K on the shipped default path as of August 29, 2026. The preset-bypass bug that put us at ~50K is fixed and the default preset is now minimal; the remaining ~1.7× gap is real and is the clearest place a competitor leads.

Does it have a published benchmark? A self-published preprint (arXiv 2603.27277), not independently reproduced and not peer-reviewed — but still more evidence than most peers, us included, have put on the table.

Can either one refactor code, not just read it? Only trace-mcp. codebase-memory-mcp is read-only analysis.

Next steps

Full field: how trace-mcp compares against 20+ code-graph and memory MCP servers.
The other head-to-heads: vs Repomix · vs Serena · vs codegraph · vs Context Mode
Decision memory — how code-linked decisions differ from a notes file.
Get started — no configuration required.

Last updated: August 30, 2026