Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-cost-optimizer

mcp-cost-optimizer

by petrovicistefan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-cost-optimizer

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • LLM Usage & Cost Tracker

      zhaoyue722
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first, multi-provider cost meter for LLM usage, exposed as MCP tools. Captures every call into a local SQLite ledger and lets any coding agent query spend, compare providers, and get recommendations — no cloud, no account. First-class support for Chinese providers (Qwen, DeepSeek) alongside Anthropic and OpenAI.
      7
      6
      MIT

    • promptspend

      AndrewAvery7
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      LLM pricing for coding agents: every price carries its source and the date it was last confirmed, and disputed prices are flagged. Looks up model rates, costs a described workload, and finds cheaper models that score at or above a given one. Local, no API key.
      3
      1
      MIT

    • token-meter

      whdrnr2583-cmd
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Local-first dashboard + MCP server that parses Claude Code and Codex JSONL files into a SQLite cost / token tracker. Per-MCP and per-tool breakdown, session drill-down, dedup by request_id; never talks to vendor APIs
      5
      130 npm
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a different scope: single-request estimation, aggregate usage analysis, and model comparison. They all relate to cost, but the descriptions make the boundaries clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three names follow the same verb_llm_noun pattern: estimate_llm_cost, analyze_llm_usage, compare_llm_models. The convention is predictable and consistent.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools are well-scoped for a narrow cost-analysis server, and each serves a distinct purpose. No unnecessary tools are present.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers estimation, usage analysis, and model comparison, but an optimizer would benefit from a recommendation or pricing-catalog operation. As named, it analyzes costs rather than completing an optimization lifecycle.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources