An MCP server should be judged by what an agent can finish, not by how many tools sit in its catalog. So I pointed an agent at the hosted Appwrite and Vercel MCP servers and asked both to do the same job: deploy identical applications, inspect the builds, diagnose a deliberate failure, ship a second version, and recover from it.
The two servers are built for different jobs, and the result splits along those lines:
Appwrite reached much further into the backend and was the only one of the two exposing rollback, deletion, and explicit write confirmation through MCP.
Appwrite shipped a real bug into this run. Its runtime log tool fetched the data successfully and then told the agent it had failed.
Vercel deployed faster and reported runtime failures better. It reached READY in about 2.1 seconds on the static app and its dedicated log tools filter properly.
