Hermes Action Bridge vs Lo Eyes

In-depth architectural comparison of the Hermes Action Bridge and Lo Eyes 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 Hermes Action Bridge 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).
• Primary tools included: hermes_run, hermes_plan, hermes_capabilities.

Explore Hermes Action Bridge Details

L

Choose Lo Eyes 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).
• Primary tools included: eyes_screenshot, eyes_scan, eyes_audit.

Explore Lo Eyes Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Hermes Action Bridge Developer Tools	L Lo Eyes Developer Tools
Summary	Delegate real-world actions from Claude Code, Codex, and other agents to Hermes Agent.	Visual accessibility inspector. WCAG contrast, touch targets, heading audits, screenshots.
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": {
    "hermes-action-bridge": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "lo-eyes": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "playwright"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons