A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server that analyzes AI agent session logs to find token waste and optimization opportunities.
4 npm
MIT
Token Guardian MCP
by KitsuneTech1
Related Servers
Alternatives to Token Guardian MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that scores tool descriptions, estimates token costs, simulates agent tool selection, and generates reliability reports to help AI agents choose the right tools and reduce wasted tokens.57 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that helps AI agents reduce token usage by compressing, summarizing, and managing conversation/context data more efficiently.11MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that reduces token usage by lazily loading skills and tools only when needed, and routing repetitive subtasks to ML backends instead of the LLM.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that minimizes LLM token usage by compressing, summarizing, filtering, chunk-referencing, and pruning large context before it reaches the model, with heuristic or local-SLM smart actions, caching, and token counting.7 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that reduces token consumption in AI coding assistants by up to 90% via structural reads, PreToolUse hooks, and tp-\* subagents.25189 npm5MIT
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: one provides a usage snapshot with improvement suggestions, the other recommends a routing choice for a task. There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent 'token_guardian_<verb>_<noun>' pattern using snake_case, with descriptive verbs ('usage_snapshot', 'recommend_route') that clearly indicate their function.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a domain that might benefit from additional diagnostics (e.g., cost breakdown, model listing) or configuration advice. The count is on the low end of acceptable for a focused utility.
Completeness2/5
The server explicitly avoids any action tools, being read-only. It covers snapshot analysis and routing recommendations but lacks tools for detailed queries (e.g., by time period, by model) or applying any changes, leaving notable gaps for hands-on usage optimization.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues