Exogram Authority Runtime vs Toolcallwitness MCP

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

Choose Toolcallwitness 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).
• Primary tools included: create_witness_receipt, check_approval_rule, summarize_risk_timeline.

Explore Toolcallwitness MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools	Toolcallwitness MCP Developer Tools
Summary	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.	A witness layer for AI agent tool calls.
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": {
    "toolcallwitness-mcp": {
      "url": "https://toolcallwitness.clauxel.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons