agent-cost-lens-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to agent-cost-lens-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceLocal-first cost tracking and model routing for MCP agents with offline token counting, budget alerts, and spend reports.25 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceTracks AI agent token usage and spending in real time, with budget alerts, per-task cost breakdown, and a visual dashboard.61MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAnalyzes Azure cloud costs, audits for waste, and provides budget insights via natural language through a secure local MCP server.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that analyzes AI agent session logs to find token waste and optimization opportunities.4 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLocal LLM cost & token forensics proxy with anomaly detection, enabling security teams to scan for cost anomalies and abuse patterns, and expose results via MCP for autonomous agents.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to track LLM costs, enforce budgets, compare models, and estimate expenses through simple tool calls.-
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinct: preview_upload is a read-only audit step showing exactly what would be sent, while analyze_costs performs the actual sweep, upload, and summary. There is no meaningful overlap in their purposes.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_costs and preview_upload. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
Only two tools exist, which is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but the domain is narrow and each tool earns its place: one main analysis/upload action and one preflight audit step. The count feels reasonable for the server's purpose.
The workflow is complete for the stated purpose: preview_upload covers the audit side and analyze_costs covers the actual analysis and upload. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within this narrow cost-analysis domain.