A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceLocal-first cost tracking and model routing for MCP agents with offline token counting, budget alerts, and spend reports.
34 npm
MIT
LLM Usage & Cost Tracker
by zhaoyue722
Related Servers
Alternatives to LLM Usage & Cost Tracker
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceTrack LLM token costs across Claude, GPT and Gemini. MCP server + CLI with optimization hints and $ savings estimates.83 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to track LLM costs, enforce budgets, compare models, and estimate expenses through simple tool calls.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLocal-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 APIs5117 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceReal-time cost observability for Model Context Protocol tool calls. Wraps any MCP server, attributesspend per tool/project/customer. Free 25K calls/month. EU-hosted, GDPR-ready, MIT.6113MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceExposes a local inference ledger over MCP stdio, letting agents query request counts, token usage, TTFT, energy consumption, local costs, cloud-equivalent costs, savings percentages, and per-model breakdowns from an OpenAI-compatible proxy's SQLite ledger. Provides four read-only tools so coding agents can answer questions about home GPU inference economics without opening a browser.41MIT
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 7 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_providers for cost projection, get_pricing for current rates, list_providers for provider info, query_spend for spending breakdown, recommend_provider for cheapest model, record_usage for logging calls, and usage_summary for period summaries. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_providers, get_pricing, list_providers, query_spend, recommend_provider, record_usage). The only minor deviation is 'usage_summary' which is noun_noun but still clear and fits the style.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for an LLM usage and cost tracker. It covers listing, comparing, recommending, recording, and querying without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The server provides core functionality for tracking usage and costs, including recording, querying, and cost projection. Minor gaps exist: no tool to update/delete usage records or manage provider/pricing data, but these are likely intentional for a read-focused tracker.
Maintenance
ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues