MetaGO Agent Harness vs Exogram Authority Runtime

In-depth architectural comparison of the MetaGO Agent Harness and Exogram Authority Runtime 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?

M

Choose MetaGO Agent Harness 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 MetaGO Agent Harness Details

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

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	M MetaGO Agent Harness Developer Tools	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools
Summary	Decision lock, anti-hallucination, meta-evolution and provenance for any MCP agent. 55 tools.	Model Context Protocol server for the Exogram Authority Runtime.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

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": {
    "metago-agent-harness": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "metago-agent-harness"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "exogram-authority-runtime": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@modelcontextprotocol/server-memory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons