Skip to main content
Glama
pihme

grok-budget-mcp

by pihme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to grok-budget-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • CountdownMCP

      AlonTsur1601
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local, read-only MCP server that gives Codex a plan-aware view of its remaining usage and helps choose work that fits the current usage window.
      2
      1
      MIT

    • agent-activity

      patrickdaj
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A read-only MCP server that exposes local coding-agent session logs as three tools for introspection of recent work, debugging tool failures, and tracking token usage and estimated cost without parsing log files.
      3
      MIT

    • grok-mcp

      TuTouPower
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes local Grok Build bridge as MCP stdio server, enabling code agents like Claude Code to run Grok models, check status, and manage runs.
      6
      42 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Both tools retrieve credit/quota data, so there is surface-level overlap, but the descriptions sharply distinguish them: get_budget is the weekly Grok Build pool (the gating figure) while get_monthly_credits is explicitly labeled SECONDARY and non-gating. The explicit 'prefer get_budget' guidance makes misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both names use the identical get_<noun> snake_case pattern (get_budget, get_monthly_credits), with the noun reflecting the resource returned. No deviation in convention.

    Tool Count4/5

    Two tools is on the thin side of the 3-15 ideal, but the server's scope is deliberately narrow (read-only usage/quota reporting), so each tool earns its place. A third tool would likely be redundant rather than additive.

    Completeness4/5

    For a usage-monitoring server the surface covers the two meaningful quota views (weekly pool with per-product breakdown, plus monthly credits). A read-only domain has limited lifecycle needs, though historical/trend data is absent as a minor gap.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources