Exogram Authority Run… vs Focxle — what your AI… | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Exogram Authority Runtime vs Focxle — what your AI agents cost
In-depth architectural comparison of the Exogram Authority Runtime and Focxle — what your AI agents cost 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.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
Exogram Authority Runtime
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 44/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Focxle — what your AI agents cost
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 37/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Exogram Authority Runtime if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Focxle — what your AI agents cost if your workspace requires Developer Tools integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
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).
Exogram Authority Runtime is categorized under Developer Tools and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Focxle — what your AI agents cost belongs to Developer Tools using local stdio subprocess. Select Exogram Authority Runtime when you need capabilities focused on developer tools and Focxle — what your AI agents cost when you require tools for developer tools.