ComparEdge LLM Cost
NPM · @COMPAREDGE/LLM-COST-MCP · SCANNED SEP 20
Token cost math for LLM API calls: verified per-1M-token rates for 69 models, 17 providers.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- No production dependencies, so there is no dependency health to assess. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 70 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability80
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1661 tokens (~276/item across 6 items; 6 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management90
- Stability observed for 27 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 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 ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server?
ComparEdge LLM Cost runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp
claude mcp add imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost -- npx -y @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost -- npx -y @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"npx",
"-y",
"@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost --command npx --arg -y --arg @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp
mcp_servers:
imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost:
command: "npx"
args: ["-y", "@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"] {
"McpServers": {
"imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "npx",
"Arguments": [
"-y",
"@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost -t stdio -c npx -a -y @comparedge/llm-cost-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"imkemit-ops-comparedge-llm-cost": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp"
]
}
}
} 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.
- 20 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Sept 26 −3
- Stability: pass → 0.77 functional
- 15 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 14 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 11 Sept 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 10 Sept 26 −2
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Stability: pass → 0.83 functional
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 20 Sept 2026 · Analysed npm/@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp@1.0.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Dependencies 0 packages
| Packages resolved | 0 |
|---|---|
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
cheapest_models ~273
List the cheapest LLM models, optionally filtered to those with at least a given context window. Ranked by a blended input:output rate. BEHAVIOR: Ranks models by a blended per-1M rate weighted 3:1 input to output (most workloads read more than they write), lowest first. min_context filters out models with a smaller context window. Returns the blended rate plus the raw input and output rates so you can sanity-check against your own token split. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use when the user wants "the cheapest model" without naming candidates. - Pass min_context when the task needs a large window; it accepts "200" (read as 200K) or "200000" (raw tokens). - Follow up with estimate_cost using the real token split, since the blended ranking is an approximation. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "What are the cheapest LLMs right now?", "Cheapest model with at least a 1M context window", "Five lowest-cost models for high-volume tagging"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | How many models to return (default: 5, max: 30) |
| min_context | number | – | Minimum context window. Pass 200 for 200K, or 200000 for raw tokens (default: no minimum) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compare_models_cost ~291
Price the same call across 2 to 6 models and rank them from cheapest to most expensive, with a multiplier showing how much more each costs than the cheapest option. BEHAVIOR: Resolves each model reference, computes the per-call cost at the given token counts, sorts ascending, and reports each model's cost and its ratio to the cheapest. If any reference cannot be resolved, it says which one and stops so you can correct it. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use when the user is choosing between named models for a known workload. - Pick the token counts that reflect the real task, not a round guess, so the ranking is meaningful. - Use cheapest_models instead when the user has not named specific models. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "Compare GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro for a 5k/1k call", "Cheapest of Haiku 4.5, GPT-5-mini, Gemini 3 Flash for classification", "Opus vs Sonnet vs Fable at 20k in 2k out"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_tokens | number | yes | Input tokens per call, applied to every model |
| models | array | yes | Array of 2 to 6 model ids or names to compare |
| output_tokens | number | yes | Output tokens per call, applied to every model |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
estimate_cost ~397
Estimate the exact dollar cost of one LLM call, or a batch of identical calls, from input and output token counts. Returns a per-call breakdown plus cached-input and batch-API savings where the model supports them. BEHAVIOR: Resolves the model reference (id or display name, fuzzy matched), then computes input_tokens/1M x input_rate + output_tokens/1M x output_rate. Multiplies by calls for a total. If the model offers cached-input pricing or a batch API, it shows those cheaper totals too. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use whenever the user knows roughly how many tokens a call reads and writes. - A rough token rule: 1 token is about 4 English characters, or 0.75 words. A page of text is ~500 tokens. - Set calls when the same-shaped request runs many times (e.g. one per support ticket). - Use monthly_budget instead when the user thinks in calls-per-day rather than a fixed batch. - Use compare_models_cost to price the same call across several models at once. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "What does a 10k-token prompt with a 2k-token answer cost on Claude Opus 4.8?", "Price 50,000 GPT-5-mini calls at 800 in / 400 out tokens", "How much for a 200k-token document summarized by Gemini 3.1 Pro?"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| calls | number | – | How many identical calls to price (default: 1) |
| input_tokens | number | yes | Number of input (prompt) tokens per call |
| model | string | yes | Model id or name (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "GPT-5.5", "gemini-3.1-pro"). Use list_models if unsure. |
| output_tokens | number | yes | Number of output (completion) tokens per call |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_models ~240
List LLM models with their per-1M-token input and output prices, cached-input rate where offered, context window, and tier. Optionally filter to one provider. BEHAVIOR: Returns every model (or just one provider's) with id, display name, input/output/cached rates, context window, and tier (flagship, standard, fast, reasoning). The id is what estimate_cost, compare_models_cost, and monthly_budget expect. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use to find the exact model id before pricing a call. - Pass provider (a slug like "openai", "anthropic", "google") to narrow the list. - Use cheapest_models instead when the user wants the lowest price rather than a full list. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "List Anthropic models and prices", "What does GPT-5.5 cost per token?", "Show all reasoning models", "Which Gemini models have a 1M context window?"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | string | – | Optional provider slug to filter by (e.g. "openai", "anthropic", "google", "deepseek", "mistral") |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_providers ~172
List every LLM API provider ComparEdge tracks, with model count, whether a batch API is available, and the cheapest model per provider. BEHAVIOR: Returns every provider we track (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Amazon, Groq, Mistral, xAI, and more), each with its model count and a one-line cheapest-model summary. Prices are USD per 1M tokens. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use first when the user asks "which providers exist?" or "who sells the cheapest tokens?". - Use before list_models when you want the provider slug to filter by. - No parameters. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "What LLM providers are there?", "Which providers have a batch API?", "Show me the model vendors you cover"
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
monthly_budget ~288
Project the daily, monthly, and yearly spend for a recurring LLM workload from calls-per-day and average token counts. Includes cached-input and batch-API projections where available. BEHAVIOR: Computes per-call cost from average input and output tokens, then scales to daily (x calls), monthly (x30 days), and yearly (x365) totals, and reports the monthly token volume. Cheaper cached-input and batch paths are shown when the model supports them. USAGE GUIDELINES: - Use for planning a feature that calls an LLM on a steady cadence (per ticket, per user action, per cron run). - avg_input_tokens and avg_output_tokens should be typical values, not worst case. - Use estimate_cost instead for a one-off or fixed batch. EXAMPLE QUERIES: "Monthly cost if we run 5,000 Claude Haiku calls a day at 1,200 in / 300 out", "Budget GPT-5-mini for 200 summaries an hour", "Yearly spend on Gemini 3 Flash at 50k calls/day, 500/200 tokens"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| avg_input_tokens | number | yes | Average input tokens per call |
| avg_output_tokens | number | yes | Average output tokens per call |
| daily_calls | number | yes | Number of calls per day |
| model | string | yes | Model id or name to budget for |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server?
ComparEdge LLM Cost is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.imkemit-ops/comparedge-llm-cost. Token cost math for LLM API calls: verified per-1M-token rates for 69 models, 17 providers. This page covers its npm package (@comparedge/llm-cost-mcp).
Is the ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server safe to use?
ComparEdge LLM Cost scores 82 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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 ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server expose?
ComparEdge LLM Cost exposes 6 tools: list_providers, list_models, estimate_cost, compare_models_cost, cheapest_models, monthly_budget. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,661 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server still maintained?
ComparEdge LLM Cost is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the ComparEdge LLM Cost MCP server under?
ComparEdge LLM Cost declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.