Codex Contaminants vs Exogram Authority Runtime

In-depth architectural comparison of the Codex Contaminants 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.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

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

Choose Exogram Authority Runtime 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 Exogram Authority Runtime Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Codex Contaminants Developer Tools	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools
Summary	Codex Alimentarius CXS 193 — maximum levels for contaminants and toxins in	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.
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": {
    "codex-contaminants": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "codex-contaminants"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "exogram-authority-runtime": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/server-memory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons