OneTool vs MCPs Benchmark¶
Benchmarks run: February 2026 · raw data
Scenario: Impact of tool usage - one-shot¶
With 18 MCP servers loaded, multiple-mcp consumes 42x more input tokens (47,660 vs 1,131) than OneTool for the same task. This translates to 28x higher cost (2.42¢ vs 0.09¢) and 1.5x slower execution (7s vs 5s). The token overhead comes from sending all tool definitions with every request — a cost that scales with the number of configured servers regardless of which tools are actually used.
| Task | in | out | tools | time | cost | result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| compare:base | 34 | 285 | 0 | 4s | 0.09¢ | FAIL |
| compare:mcp | 1516 | 99 | 2 | 6s | 0.11¢ | PASS |
| compare:multiple-mcp | 47660 | 129 | 2 | 7s | 2.42¢ | PASS |
| compare:onetool | 1131 | 95 | 1 | 5s | 0.09¢ | PASS |
| compare:onetool-proxy | 1185 | 99 | 1 | 4s | 0.09¢ | PASS |
Scenario: Impact of tool usage - 3-shot¶
Multi-turn conversations amplify the token overhead. Over 3 turns, multi-mcp accumulates 40x more input tokens (119,258 vs 2,947) and costs 34x more (5.99¢ vs 0.17¢). The gap widens because MCP re-sends all tool definitions on every turn, while OneTool maintains a single consolidated interface.
Developer monthly impact (20 working days, ~10 conversations/day, ~10 turns each, Claude Opus 4.5 @ $5/M input):
- multi-mcp: ~79M tokens, ~$395/month
- onetool: ~2M tokens, ~$10/month
- Waste: ~77M tokens/month (~$385 in pure overhead)
| Task | in | out | tools | time | cost | result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| compare:multi-mcp | 119258 | 88 | 2 | 13s | 5.99¢ | PASS |
| compare:onetool | 2947 | 90 | 2 | 10s | 0.17¢ | PASS |
Assumptions¶
- Benchmark model: google/gemini-3-flash-preview
- multi-mcp has the following MCP servers: package-version, brave-search, context7, github, fetch, sequential-thinking, filesystem, memory, plantuml, excel, ripgrep, gemini-grounding, mcp-alchemy, magic, supabase, railway