Trinity Lite vs Baton

In-depth architectural comparison of the Trinity Lite and Baton 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 Trinity Lite when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Coding Agents domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Capability-based and direct task dispatch, SQLite persistence for tasks and results, MCP access through 14 tools and 3 resources.

Explore Trinity Lite Details

Choose Baton when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Coding Agents domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Cross-agent session conversion, Canonical intermediate session representation, Automatic latest-session discovery.

Explore Baton Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Trinity Lite Yomiracle Coding Agents	Baton Coding Agents
Summary	Local-first task bus for CLI-based AI agents. Route work, persist state in SQLite, and let Codex, Claude Code, and other agents collaborate through a shared MCP server.	Pass the baton between coding agents: convert sessions across Claude Code, OpenCode, Codex & more.
Category & Scope	Coding Agents

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": {
    "yomiracle-trinity-lite": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "trinity-lite"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "baton-2": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@kasabeh/baton-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons