MCP Server Docker vs Codex Contaminants

In-depth architectural comparison of the MCP Server Docker and Codex Contaminants 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 MCP Server Docker 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).
• You have access to required keys: DOCKER_HOST.
• Primary tools included: Natural-language container composition prompt, Container lifecycle management, Image build, pull, push, and removal.

Explore MCP Server Docker Details

C

Choose Codex Contaminants 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).

Explore Codex Contaminants Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	MCP Server Docker ckreiling Developer Tools	C Codex Contaminants Developer Tools
Summary	Integrate with Docker to manage containers, images, volumes, and networks.	Codex Alimentarius CXS 193 — maximum levels for contaminants and toxins in
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

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": {
    "ckreiling-mcp-server-docker": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-server-docker"
      ],
      "env": {
        "DOCKER_HOST": "YOUR_DOCKER_HOST_HERE"
      }
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codex-contaminants": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "codex-contaminants"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons