Exogram Authority Run… vs Usable Browser Agent | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Exogram Authority Runtime vs Usable Browser Agent
In-depth architectural comparison of the Exogram Authority Runtime and Usable Browser Agent 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
Usable Browser Agent
Developer Tools · Local stdio
Quality: 27/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Exogram Authority Runtime if you need specialized Developer Tools tools running via a local process. Choose Usable Browser Agent 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?
E
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, Usable Browser Agent belongs to Developer Tools using local stdio subprocess. Select Exogram Authority Runtime when you need capabilities focused on developer tools and Usable Browser Agent when you require tools for developer tools.