claude-cost-mcp
by firstshout
README.md
# claude-cost-mcp
MCP server that estimates **Claude API token counts, per-model cost, and prompt-caching break-even** — right inside Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, or any MCP client. Korean/CJK token-aware. Fully local, **no API key, no network**.
Built by [claudeguide.io](https://claudeguide.io).
## Tools
| Tool | What it does |
|---|---|
| `estimate_tokens` | Token count for any text (Korean/CJK-aware — Korean costs ~30% more than English) |
| `estimate_cost` | Cost across Haiku 4.5 / Sonnet 4.5 / Opus 4.5, with optional prompt-caching ratio and call count |
| `caching_breakeven` | Prompt-caching savings + the ~1.28-reuse break-even point |
| `batch_savings` | Batch API savings (50% off both directions) for async workloads — daily and monthly $ |
| `compare_providers` | Cost table across 8 models / 3 providers (Claude vs GPT vs Gemini), sorted cheapest-first |
Pricing mirrors the 2026-05 canonical rates: Haiku $1/$5, Sonnet $3/$15, Opus $5/$25 per 1M tokens. Provider comparison uses verified 2026-05 public rates (OpenAI GPT-4o/-mini/o1, Google Gemini Flash/Pro 2.0).
## Install
### Claude Desktop
Add to `claude_desktop_config.json`:
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"claude-cost": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "claude-cost-mcp"]
}
}
}
```
### Claude Code
```bash
claude mcp add claude-cost -- npx -y claude-cost-mcp
```
Then ask: *"How much would a 2,000-token prompt with 800 tokens out cost on each Claude model?"* or *"How many tokens is this Korean paragraph?"*
## Run locally
```bash
npm install
npm test # 10 tests: pricing logic + live MCP handshake
npm start # stdio server
```
## Why
Most developers guess at Claude costs and overpay — especially in Korean, where the same prompt uses ~1.3x the tokens. This puts accurate numbers one question away inside the tool you already use. Full benchmark and free calculators at [claudeguide.io](https://claudeguide.io).
## License
MIT
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: batch savings, caching break-even, provider comparison, cost estimation, and token estimation. No overlap between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., batch_savings, estimate_cost), making them predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is an appropriate size for a cost-estimation server, each covering a necessary aspect without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core cost estimation, token counting, batch savings, caching efficiency, and provider comparison. Minor gaps like historical usage tracking exist but are not essential for the stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues