Artifact Share vs Exogram Authority Run… | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Artifact Share vs Exogram Authority Runtime
In-depth architectural comparison of the Artifact Share and Exogram Authority Runtime 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.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
Artifact Share
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 33/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Exogram Authority Runtime
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 44/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Artifact Share if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Exogram Authority Runtime if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
A
Choose Artifact Share when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Artifact Share is categorized under Developer Tools and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Exogram Authority Runtime belongs to Developer Tools using local stdio subprocess. Select Artifact Share when you need capabilities focused on developer tools and Exogram Authority Runtime when you require tools for developer tools.