Share Artifacts vs Exogram Authority Runtime

In-depth architectural comparison of the Share Artifacts 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?

S

Choose Share Artifacts 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 Share Artifacts 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	S Share Artifacts Developer Tools	Exogram Authority Runtime Developer Tools
Summary	Publish and update safe static HTML reports, presentations, and explainers with controlled sharing.	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": {
    "share-artifacts": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "share-artifacts"
      ]
    }
  }
}

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

Related MCP Server Comparisons