Exogram Authority Runtime vs Fathom MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Exogram Authority Runtime and Fathom 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 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

F

Choose Fathom MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Fathom MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools	F Fathom MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.	Give your AI assistant real meeting context via Fathom so every output grounded in your work
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": {
    "mcp-13": {
      "url": "https://api.fathom.ai/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons