How We Selected These
This collection focuses on MCP servers that provide direct leverage in coding workflows. We excluded servers with poor maintenance, shallow API coverage, or that replicate capabilities already built into modern LLM clients.
The Servers
GitHub MCP Server (Official)
The reference implementation from GitHub itself. Exposes repository contents, code search, issues, PRs, and commit history as LLM tools. For any team using GitHub, this is the first MCP server to install.
Best for: Code search across repos, PR review assistance, issue-to-code workflows
Setup complexity: Low — PAT authentication, standard Node.js setup
PostgreSQL MCP Server
Exposes your database schema and allows read-only queries. LLMs with database access can answer data questions, help write SQL, and validate query logic against your actual schema — not hallucinated table names.
Best for: Data engineering, debugging data issues, writing migrations
Setup complexity: Low to Medium — needs database credentials and network access
File System MCP Server
Grants the LLM read/write access to a scoped directory. Essential for any coding workflow where you want the agent to be able to read multiple files, compare implementations, or propose multi-file changes.
Best for: Local codebase exploration, cross-file refactoring, project-level code review
Setup complexity: Low — scope carefully to avoid unintended file access
Fetch/HTTP MCP Server
Enables the LLM to fetch URLs — API documentation, package READMEs, error pages. Useful when you're debugging an integration and want the LLM to read the actual current documentation rather than relying on training data.
Best for: Integration debugging, documentation lookup, reading API error responses
Setup complexity: Very Low
What to Combine
For coding agents, the most useful combination is GitHub + File System + PostgreSQL if your work involves data. This gives an agent access to your codebase context (GitHub), your local working files (File System), and your data layer (PostgreSQL).
What We Left Out
Several popular MCP servers were excluded: browser automation servers (useful but complex to operate reliably), search engine servers (often rate-limited and unreliable), and experimental servers without stable APIs.