CostBench
REMOTE · COSTBENCH.COM · SCANNED OCT 4
Verified pricing, hidden costs, negotiation data, price changes & TCO for 3,390+ software products.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability70
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 834 tokens (~92/item across 9 items; 9 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage80
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 39% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 9 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 10 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities40
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-03-26; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
How do I install the CostBench MCP server?
CostBench is a hosted endpoint at https://costbench.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · costbench.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-costbench-mcp 'https://costbench.com/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-costbench-mcp": {
"url": "https://costbench.com/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"com-costbench-mcp": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://costbench.com/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.com-costbench-mcp] url = "https://costbench.com/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"com-costbench-mcp": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://costbench.com/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add com-costbench-mcp --url 'https://costbench.com/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
com-costbench-mcp:
url: "https://costbench.com/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"com-costbench-mcp": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://costbench.com/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add com-costbench-mcp -t streamable-http -u 'https://costbench.com/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-costbench-mcp": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://costbench.com/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 28 Sept 26 +7
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- Schema quality: 83 → 92 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 22% → 39% ▲ functional
- Server version: 1.0.0 → 1.1.0 functional
- New tool “get_price_changes” functional
- 11 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 31 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 27 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Jul 26 0
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 7 Oct 2026 · Probed https://costbench.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=costbench.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 16 Sept 2026 | 15 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 870fca8c9e89037113836f0fc1eeff9f |
| SANs: costbench.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of costbench.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| costbench.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://costbench.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://costbench.com/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
calculate_tco ~87
Total cost of ownership for a product and team size: sourced line items (licenses with price escalation, benchmark implementation), year-one + multi-year totals, effective per-seat cost. The defensible "true cost for an N-person team" answer.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| seats | number | yes | – |
| slug | string | yes | – |
| termYears | number | – | – |
| tier | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compare_software ~44
Side-by-side pricing comparison of 2–4 products (starting price, enterprise tier, median annual cost, free tier, ratings).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
discover_software ~62
Find software products by criteria (category, max price, free tier). Returns matching slugs to look up.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | – |
| hasFreeTier | boolean | – | – |
| limit | number | – | – |
| maxPrice | number | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
estimate_llm_cost ~121
Estimate the cost of an LLM/API workload (input + output tokens) for a usage-priced provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, AWS Bedrock…) from its real rate card.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputTokens | number | – | Input tokens for the workload (e.g. per month). At least one of inputTokens/outputTokens must be > 0. |
| model | string | – | – |
| outputTokens | number | – | Output tokens for the workload. At least one of inputTokens/outputTokens must be > 0. |
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_hidden_costs ~56
The documented hidden/implementation/add-on costs of a product (uplifts, onboarding fees, overages), each with a sourced quote + date. The "what they don't tell you" answer.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_negotiation_tips ~37
Sourced negotiation tactics for a product with success-likelihood (how to get a discount).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_price_changes ~170
Recent software pricing changes CostBench detected against vendor pricing pages (increases, decreases, plan restructures) — dated, with before/after price bands and a source link. Filter by product slug, category, or lookback window. The "what changed lately" answer; each item links to the sourced record.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | Only changes in this category slug, e.g. "crm" |
| days | number | – | Lookback window in days (default 30, max 365) |
| include_suspect | boolean | – | Include moves flagged as likely extraction artifacts (unit switches, |change| > 300%). Default false. |
| limit | number | – | Max items (default 25, max 100) |
| slug | string | – | Only changes for this product |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_price_history ~61
Dated per-quarter snapshots of a product's pricing page. Returns observations, NOT a trend figure — CostBench does not publish one, because diffing snapshots across renamed/restructured plan lineups is ~90% measurement artifact.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_pricing ~82
Full sourced pricing record for a software product: tiers, hidden costs, contract terms, market data, sentiment, negotiation tips, TCO scenarios, price history — every claim with its sources + a confidence/verification envelope.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | string | – | summary = numbers+sources only |
| slug | string | yes | Product slug, e.g. "salesforce" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the CostBench MCP server?
CostBench is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.costbench/mcp. Verified pricing, hidden costs, negotiation data, price changes & TCO for 3,390+ software products. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://costbench.com/mcp).
Is the CostBench MCP server safe to use?
CostBench scores 76 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the CostBench MCP server expose?
CostBench exposes 9 tools: get_pricing, get_hidden_costs, get_negotiation_tips, get_price_history, compare_software, and 4 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 720 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the CostBench MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to CostBench without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the CostBench MCP server still maintained?
CostBench is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.