LLM Usage
PYPI · LLM-USAGE-MCP · SCANNED SEP 20
Local-first, multi-provider tool that captures LLM API spend and exposes it to coding agents via MCP
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 Security93
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs a script at install time (build_backend) that we could not recognise. It may be perfectly ordinary, but we do not read the published tarball, so we cannot say what it does. View diagnostics → Partial
- 3 of 47 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency32
- 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
- License check failed: no license is declared. See how to fix → Fail
- Actively maintained (last published 48 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1448 tokens (~160/item across 9 items; 7 tools + 2 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 Management93
- Stability observed for 28 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 7 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
How do I install the LLM Usage MCP server?
LLM Usage runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx llm-usage-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · llm-usage-mcp
claude mcp add zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp -- uvx llm-usage-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"llm-usage-mcp"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"llm-usage-mcp"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp -- uvx llm-usage-mcp
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"uvx",
"llm-usage-mcp"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp --command uvx --arg llm-usage-mcp
mcp_servers:
zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp:
command: "uvx"
args: ["llm-usage-mcp"] {
"McpServers": {
"zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "uvx",
"Arguments": [
"llm-usage-mcp"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp -t stdio -c uvx -a llm-usage-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"zhaoyue722-llm-usage-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"llm-usage-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.
- 19 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.
- 17 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 → 0.80 functional
- 15 Sept 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 14 Sept 26 −14
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 13 Sept 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 12 Sept 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 11 Sept 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ 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 pypi/llm-usage-mcp@0.1.3
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | unreviewed | uv_build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 47 packages
| Packages resolved | 47 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 3 |
| 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 →
compare_providers ~257
Project the cost of a hypothetical workload across providers/models. Returns models ranked by absolute cost ascending, with `relative_cost_pct` measured against the cheapest entry (cheapest = 100%). `models`, if given, restricts the comparison to those model names. Cost is computed from input/output tokens only; `RankedEntry.notes` is always `None` in v1 (the field is retained for future per-row caveats like "tiered pricing approximated"). `include_snapshots=False` (the default) family-dedups the ranked list: rows sharing both a model-family root (`gpt-5-mini` ↔ `gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07`) AND an identical projected cost collapse to one representative, with `RankedEntry.variant_count` recording how many catalog rows the entry stands for. Set `include_snapshots=True` to see every catalog row (each with `variant_count=1`) — useful when comparing snapshot-by-snapshot pricing for production pinning.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| expected_input_tokens | integer | yes | – |
| expected_output_tokens | integer | yes | – |
| include_snapshots | boolean | – | – |
| models | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ranked | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_pricing ~86
Return current pricing for one model, one provider, or all models. Both filters are optional and AND-combined. An unknown (provider, model) returns an empty list rather than an error — the caller can distinguish "model not in our table" from "no model matches your filter" by passing `provider` alone.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | – | – | – |
| provider | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| models | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
list_providers ~92
List every provider we know about, with their models and OpenAI-compat flag. Sources the provider/model lists from `pricing_snapshot`, so a provider whose pricing hasn't been seeded simply doesn't appear. After `bootstrap()` runs on a fresh install this includes every v1 provider (anthropic, openai, qwen, deepseek). Order is alphabetical by provider, then by model within each provider.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
query_spend ~263
Return spending broken down by a chosen axis over a time window. `start` and `end` are ISO-8601 strings (trailing-`Z`, `+00:00`, or naive — naive is interpreted as UTC). Default window is the last 30 days. `group_by` is one of provider | model | project | tag | day. `filter` AND-combines optional provider/model/project equality predicates. `include_failed` defaults to `False` so failure rows (e.g. streams that died mid-flight with partial counts) are excluded from totals and groups. Pass `True` to fold them back in — useful for debugging capture-layer behavior, not for honest spend numbers. Tag semantics: events with NULL/empty tags are excluded from `group_by="tag"` results entirely; multi-tag events contribute once per tag (so per-group `calls` sums can exceed the window total). Project semantics are symmetric: NULL projects are dropped from `group_by="project"`. Groups are ordered cost-desc with alphabetical ties.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | – | – | – |
| filter | – | – | – |
| group_by | string | – | – |
| include_failed | boolean | – | – |
| start | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | array | yes | – |
| total_calls | integer | yes | – |
| total_cost_usd | number | yes | – |
| total_input_tokens | integer | yes | – |
| total_output_tokens | integer | yes | – |
No examples provided.
recommend_provider ~362
Recommend the cheapest priced model that fits the workload + budget. v1 ranks by cost only. A future release will incorporate quality benchmarks (see `quality_snapshot` — the table is reserved for that purpose) and accept a `quality_priority` axis; for v1 those would rely on data we don't yet have, so the surface stays cost-only and honest. `expected_input_tokens` / `expected_output_tokens` default to a nominal 1k/1k workload when absent; the `reasoning` notes when defaults are in use. `budget_usd`, when set, filters out models that exceed it — if nothing fits, falls back to the cheapest model overall (the result fields are required, so there's no "no match" return shape) and the `reasoning` says so plainly. `providers` / `models` are optional whitelists (AND-combine when both passed). Both are applied before the budget cut, so an over- budget fallback returns the cheapest within the filter set rather than the cheapest priced model overall. A whitelist that matches nothing raises rather than fabricating a result — likely a spelling error in the caller's name list. `task_description` is **optional** and echoed into the reasoning but does not drive selection — the tool isn't an LLM and can't interpret free text. Omit it (or pass `None`) and the reasoning opens with `"Recommending …"` instead of `"For task 'X': …"`.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_usd | – | – | – |
| expected_input_tokens | – | – | – |
| expected_output_tokens | – | – | – |
| models | – | – | – |
| providers | – | – | – |
| task_description | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| alternatives | array | yes | – |
| estimated_cost_usd | number | yes | – |
| model | string | yes | – |
| provider | string | yes | – |
| reasoning | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
record_usage ~140
Record a single LLM API call with token counts. Cost is computed automatically from the pricing table at insert time. `request_id` enables idempotent recording — replaying a log file won't double-count.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| cache_read_tokens | integer | – | – |
| cache_write_tokens | integer | – | – |
| duration_ms | – | – | – |
| error_type | – | – | – |
| input_tokens | integer | yes | – |
| metadata | – | – | – |
| model | string | yes | – |
| output_tokens | integer | yes | – |
| project | – | – | – |
| provider | string | yes | – |
| request_id | – | – | – |
| success | boolean | – | – |
| tags | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost_usd | number | yes | – |
| id | string | yes | – |
| warning | – | yes | – |
No examples provided.
usage_summary ~210
Return a one-shot summary of usage over a named calendar period. `period` is one of today | week | month | year (default: "week"). Boundaries are calendar UTC: `today` = since 00:00 UTC today, `week` = since Monday 00:00 UTC, `month` = since the 1st of the month, `year` = since January 1st. Returns totals, the top-3 providers and top-3 models by cost (with `pct` of total), and the single most expensive call in the window — or `largest_call=None` when the window is empty. `include_failed` defaults to `False`: totals, top-N rollups, and `largest_call` all exclude `success=False` rows (partial-stream captures and other failure rows). Pass `True` for symmetric debugging access to the failure population.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_failed | boolean | – | – |
| period | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_count | integer | yes | – |
| largest_call | – | yes | – |
| period | string | yes | – |
| top_models | array | yes | – |
| top_providers | array | yes | – |
| total_cost_usd | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
What is the LLM Usage MCP server?
LLM Usage is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.zhaoyue722/llm-usage-mcp. Local-first, multi-provider tool that captures LLM API spend and exposes it to coding agents via MCP. This page covers its PyPI package (llm-usage-mcp).
Is the LLM Usage MCP server safe to use?
LLM Usage scores 76 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 2026. 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 LLM Usage MCP server expose?
LLM Usage exposes 7 tools: record_usage, query_spend, compare_providers, recommend_provider, get_pricing, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,410 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the LLM Usage MCP server still maintained?
LLM Usage 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.