Contract Guard MCP vs Sovereign AI Act MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Contract Guard MCP and Sovereign AI Act MCP 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 Contract Guard MCP when:

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

Explore Contract Guard MCP Details

Choose Sovereign AI Act MCP when:

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

Explore Sovereign AI Act MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Contract Guard MCP Legal	Sovereign AI Act MCP Legal
Summary	Pre-interaction risk check for EVM contracts/tokens: proxy, EIP-7702, ERC20 metadata. Zero deps.	Classify any AI system under the EU AI Act: risk tier + binding Articles, verbatim from the law.
Category & Scope	Legal	Legal

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

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sovereign-ai-act-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "sovereign-ai-act-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons