Exogram Authority Runtime vs Ipfs Toolkit

In-depth architectural comparison of the Exogram Authority Runtime and Ipfs Toolkit 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 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

I

Choose Ipfs Toolkit 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 Ipfs Toolkit Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools	I Ipfs Toolkit Developer Tools
Summary	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.	Store, retrieve, and pin encrypted files on IPFS via MCP tools for AI agents and workflows
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
Quality signal

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

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ipfs-toolkit": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "ipfs-toolkit"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons