Actenon Kernel vs MCP Slim Guard

In-depth architectural comparison of the Actenon Kernel and MCP Slim Guard MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Actenon Kernel when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Actenon Kernel Details

Choose MCP Slim Guard when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore MCP Slim Guard Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Actenon Kernel Security	MCP Slim Guard Security
Summary	Verify proof at the execution edge: ALLOW or a typed refusal a model can read.	Schema compression (83%+ savings) + security proxy for MCP servers — SSRF, injection, rate limit
Category & Scope	Security	Security
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "actenon-kernel": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "actenon-kernel"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-slim-guard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-slim-guard"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons