EU AI Act Article 50 Watermark Attestation vs Ruv Swarm

In-depth architectural comparison of the EU AI Act Article 50 Watermark Attestation and Ruv Swarm 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 EU AI Act Article 50 Watermark Attestation 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 EU AI Act Article 50 Watermark Attestation Details

R

Choose Ruv Swarm 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 Ruv Swarm Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	EU AI Act Article 50 Watermark Attestation Developer Tools	R Ruv Swarm Developer Tools
Summary	Signed Article 50 attestations: C2PA + invisible watermark + fingerprint. EU 2 Aug 2026 cliff.	Neural network swarm orchestration with WebAssembly acceleration and MCP integration
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": {
    "eu-ai-act-article-50-watermark-attestation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@smithery/cli@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ruv-swarm": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "ruv-swarm@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons