Ironclaw vs Ipybox

In-depth architectural comparison of the Ironclaw and Ipybox 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 Ironclaw when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Cloud Platforms domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Ironclaw Details

Choose Ipybox when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Cloud Platforms domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Ipybox Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Ironclaw Cloud Platforms	Ipybox Cloud Platforms
Summary	Sandboxed shell exec for MCP clients: run untrusted agent commands in a gVisor container.	An MCP server for sandboxed Python code execution with IPython and Docker, and file transfer.
Category & Scope	Cloud Platforms	Cloud Platforms
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": {
    "ironclaw": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "ironclaw"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ipybox": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "ipybox"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons