原型 · 预览版:收录官方注册中心里的全部服务器,每 30 分钟同步一次。评价和账户功能将在后续阶段推出。
PopNx MCP为使用 AI 的人准备的 MCP 服务器 · 用大白话讲清楚

Arcstone MCP Sidecar

作者:trencinodin-stack版本 0.1.0i★ –i–
注册名称io.github.trencinodin-stack/arcstone-mcp-sidecar

安装

概览

作者提供的说明(英文原文)

Deterministic execution boundary and reference MCP sidecar for Arcstone Security Stack

PopNx MCP 的三大支柱

这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。

它能帮你做什么

我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。

  • 连接方式: –
  • 传输方式:
  • 分类: 其他

安装

选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。

安装之前

  • 基础检查:1 项中通过 1 项
  • 在你的电脑上运行,拥有你的用户账户的权限(文件、网络、应用)。
  • 注册中心没有列出需要填写的密钥。

作者没有在注册中心列出安装信息。请查看下方作者的 README。

它能做什么

它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。

基础检查i

我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月7日

  • ✓ 通过

    作者与仓库一致

    注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 trencinodin-stack 验证,该账户拥有此仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    仍在维护

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    有许可证

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • – 不适用

    端点有响应

    它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点

  • – 不适用

    使用 OAuth 登录

    在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置

  • … 尚未检查

    工具描述中没有隐藏指令

    它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表

与“其他”中的其他服务器比较i

  • 星标数多于此分类中其他 32708 个服务器的 0%
  • 发布到注册中心的时间比此分类中其他 32708 个服务器的 44% 更新
  • 基础检查结果等于或优于此分类中其他 32708 个服务器的 100%

与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。

常见问题

Arcstone MCP Sidecar 安全吗?

它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。

它需要哪些密钥或代码?

注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。

它在我的电脑上运行还是在云端?

它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。

它还在维护吗?

GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(0.1.0)于2个月前进入注册中心。

哪些应用可以使用它?

支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。

有什么可以替代它?

同一分类中有:Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, OpenTakeoff

替代选择

同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。

如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i

Spec Driven Development

作者:formulahendry

MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.

在你的电脑上运行★ 440MIT14个月前更新
安装

Remote Desktop Commander

作者:desktop-commander

Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.

在云端运行★ 211前天更新
安装

OpenTakeoff

作者:Kentucky-ai

Construction takeoff for AI agents: load plans, set scale, measure, count, export with provenance.

在你的电脑上运行今天更新
安装

作者的 README

打开 README

按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。

Arcstone Execution Boundary

Repository identity: arcstone-mcp-sidecar Implementation package: arcstone-execution-boundary Status: Experimental / Downstream / Non-Canonical / Bounded Evidence Version: 0.1.0 implementation starter

This repository is the initial native implementation of the frozen Arcstone Execution Boundary v0.1 experimental specification.

It tests one bounded question:

Can a deterministic downstream execution boundary prevent an untrusted or nondeterministic producer from causing a protected side effect unless an explicit, boundary-controlled authorization condition has been satisfied?

Frozen upstream relationship

                 Arcstone Continuity Core

FROZEN / \ / \ ▼ ▼ Path A Ingress Lab Execution Boundary COMPLETE/FROZEN THIS REPO

The Path A Ingress Lab and Execution Boundary are sibling downstream investigations.

This repository does not modify or reinterpret either frozen upstream repository.

v0.1 invariants

I1 — NO VALID AUTHORIZATION

⇒ ZERO PROTECTED ACTUATION

I2 — ONE VALID SINGLE-USE AUTHORIZATION ⇒ AT MOST ONE PROTECTED ACTUATION

I3 — UNTRUSTED PRODUCER ⇏ PROTECTED RESOURCE

The implementation explicitly keeps separate:

authorization lifecycle

≠ gate decision ≠ actuation result ≠ observed protected effect

What is intentionally not here

v0.1 does not require or claim:

  • MCP
  • WASM
  • HMAC / signatures / PKI / KMS
  • network APIs
  • generalized policy engines
  • agent frameworks
  • package-manager publication
  • public production distribution guarantees
  • exactly-once real-world execution
  • production authorization security
  • AI alignment or general agent safety

Local data model

The experimental root has this shape:

runtime/

├── auth/ │ ├── issued/ │ └── consumed/ ├── protected/ │ └── effect.bin └── evidence/ └── /

An authorization record is trusted because the untrusted producer is not permitted to create or modify the auth tree under the tested authority configuration. The authorization identifier itself carries no authority.

The consumed/ .claim file is created with create_new(true). That atomic local reservation is the v0.1 single-use claim primitive.

Build

Windows CMD:

cargo build

cargo test

or:

scripts\windows\verify.cmd

Example

Create the runtime directories:

arcstone-exec init --root runtime

Issue one authorization:

arcstone-exec issue --root runtime --auth-id AUTH-001 --action WRITE_PROTECTED_FILE --resource-id EFFECT_LOG --payload-hex 48454c4c4f

Create request.json:

{

"authorization_id": "AUTH-001", "action": "WRITE_PROTECTED_FILE", "resource_id": "EFFECT_LOG", "payload_hex": "48454c4c4f" }

Execute it:

arcstone-exec execute --root runtime --request request.json --run-id manual-001

Inspect authorization state:

arcstone-exec inspect --root runtime --auth-id AUTH-001

A replay of the same request should return a denied result because the claim already exists.

Windows authority-boundary evidence

The Rust tests verify deterministic authorization, binding, consumption, replay, failure separation, and concurrent claiming.

They cannot by themselves prove producer-to-resource authority separation when producer and boundary run under the same Windows principal.

A separate bounded Windows authority experiment was therefore completed using distinct non-administrator producer and authority principals and a dedicated disposable runtime with explicit ACL separation.

Observed results:

  • T7 direct protected-resource bypass: PASS under the tested ACL configuration
  • T8 direct actuator bypass: PASS — bounded public-API/structural result
  • T9 forged authorization issuance: PASS under the tested ACL configuration
  • I2 single-use / at-most-once authority: supported for the tested authorization
  • I3 producer-to-protected-resource separation: supported for the tested Windows configuration

The successful authorized execution transitioned the tested authorization from Issued to Consumed, created the expected protected effect, and a replay was denied before a second actuation attempt.

This evidence does not establish general Windows sandbox security, arbitrary hostile-code containment, production authorization security, or universal bypass resistance.

See docs/WINDOWS-AUTHORITY-BOUNDARY.md for the complete bounded evidence record and freeze limitations.

Machine / AI / autonomous-agent navigation

This repository is intentionally machine-operable and machine-readable.

Start here:

AGENTS.md

machine/system-manifest.json machine/repo-policy.json machine/protocol.json machine/test-matrix.json STATUS.md BUILD-REPORT.md EXPERIMENT.md

Recommended automated traversal:

1. Read machine/system-manifest.json
  1. Read machine/repo-policy.json
  2. Read AGENTS.md
  3. Read STATUS.md
  4. Read EXPERIMENT.md
  5. Run cargo test
  6. Read docs/WINDOWS-AUTHORITY-BOUNDARY.md before making OS-authority claims

Humans are not required in the deterministic request/decision path. Human-facing prose exists primarily for governance, scientific interpretation, and review.

Working principle

Evidence before expansion. Preserve the core. Test the boundary. Freeze completed evidence.

问 PopNx