CoS Codex Bridge vs MCP Server Docker

In-depth architectural comparison of the CoS Codex Bridge and MCP Server Docker 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 CoS Codex Bridge 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 CoS Codex Bridge Details

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

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C CoS Codex Bridge Developer Tools	MCP Server Docker ckreiling Developer Tools
Summary	Operate Codex projects and tasks from a Chief of Staff with scoped access and durable receipts.	Integrate with Docker to manage containers, images, volumes, and networks.
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": {
    "cos-codex-bridge": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "cos-codex-bridge"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons