Home / Token cost / Website Search

The Website Search MCP server costs 12,730 tokens before the first call.

Connect Website Search and its 53 tool definitions are loaded into the model's context on every request — 6.4% of a 200k window spent before your agent does anything.

QUICK ANSWER The Website Search MCP server's tool definitions consume 12,730 tokens — 6.7× the median MCP server (1,905 tokens). A scoped grant exposing only the tools you use cuts that roughly in proportion.

MEASURED FROM SCHEMAS 53 tools · 12,730 tokens · 6.4% of 200k · 1.3% of 1M Method →

What that buys before your agent starts working.

Tool definitions are overhead: they occupy context on every request and compete with your code, documents and conversation history for the same window.

200K WINDOW 6.4%
1M WINDOW 1.3%

Corpus context: Website Search ranks #118 of 3,213 measured MCP servers by definition cost. The median is 1,905 tokens, p90 is 7,952, and the heaviest (Fusionauth) is 183,337 — 92% of a 200k window on its own.

Where the 12,730 tokens go.

Each row is one tool definition as a tools/list entry — name, description and input schema — counted with o200k_base. Average: 240 tokens per tool.

ToolCategoryTokens% of server
aidefense_evaluate_program Read 668 5.2%
product_load_context Read 643 5.1%
aidefense_cross_map Read 480 3.8%
aidefense_get_framework_alignment Read 442 3.5%
product_review_plan Write 405 3.2%
ir_load_context Read 397 3.1%
rating_score_writing Read 361 2.8%
assessment_load_context Read 355 2.8%
cti_load_context Read 349 2.7%
aidefense_locate_concept Read 348 2.7%
cti_get_guidelines Read 337 2.6%
malware_load_context Read 314 2.5%
vuln_load_context Read 313 2.5%
vuln_get_guidelines Read 304 2.4%
aidefense_get_matrix Read 301 2.4%
get_security_writing_guidelines Read 297 2.3%
ir_get_guidelines Read 295 2.3%
aidefense_load_context Read 294 2.3%
assessment_review_report Read 293 2.3%
product_get_guidelines Read 290 2.3%
malware_review_report Read 287 2.3%
cti_review_report Read 272 2.1%
vuln_review_brief Read 266 2.1%
ir_review_report Read 265 2.1%
malware_get_guidelines Read 264 2.1%
product_compare_context Read 218 1.7%
assessment_get_guidelines Read 217 1.7%
rating_get_sheet Read 210 1.6%
cti_get_template Read 202 1.6%
assessment_get_template Read 187 1.5%
ir_get_template Read 162 1.3%
malware_get_frameworks Read 161 1.3%
rating_load_context Read 161 1.3%
cti_get_frameworks Read 158 1.2%
vuln_get_frameworks Read 156 1.2%
assessment_get_frameworks Read 155 1.2%
ir_get_frameworks Read 151 1.2%
malware_get_template Read 146 1.1%
search_zeltser Read 126 1.0%
malware_get_cross_server_routes Read 122 1.0%
cti_get_cross_server_routes Read 119 0.9%
product_get_template Read 119 0.9%
vuln_get_cross_server_routes Read 118 0.9%
assessment_get_cross_server_routes Read 115 0.9%
vuln_get_template Read 115 0.9%
ir_get_cross_server_routes Read 111 0.9%
cti_get_brief_template Read 109 0.9%
get_article Read 109 0.9%
vuln_get_brief_template Read 108 0.8%
assessment_get_brief_template Read 105 0.8%
ir_get_brief_template Read 101 0.8%
get_capabilities Read 67 0.5%
get_index_info Read 62 0.5%

Most agents use a handful of these tools. They pay for all 53.

A PolicyLayer grant exposes only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. Estimates below assume typical-weight tools (240 tokens each).

Grant scopeDefinition costReduction
All 53 tools (no gateway) 12,730 tokens
3 granted tools ~721 tokens −94%
5 granted tools ~1,201 tokens −91%
10 granted tools ~2,402 tokens −81%

Website Search token-cost questions.

How many tokens does the Website Search MCP server use?+

Its 53 tool definitions total 12,730 tokens — 6.4% of a 200k context window — measured with tiktoken o200k_base over the serialised tools/list payload. Exact counts vary slightly by client and model.

Why does Website Search consume tokens before I send a message?+

MCP clients load every connected server's tool definitions — name, description, and input schema — into the model's context so it knows what it can call. That payload is charged against your context window on every request, whether or not a tool is used.

How do I reduce Website Search's token usage?+

Expose fewer tools. A PolicyLayer grant scopes Website Search to only the tools you allow — ungranted definitions are filtered out of the tool list, so they never enter the context window. A grant of 3 typical tools costs roughly 721 tokens, a 94% reduction.

Does deferred tool loading fix this?+

Partially, in some clients. Claude Code defers MCP tool schemas behind a tool-search step by default, and VS Code has experimental grouping — but you still pay tokens per search and reload, and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load definitions upfront. Reducing the exposed tool set cuts the cost in every client.

How these numbers were measured.

01
Serialisation

Each tool is serialised as a tools/list entry — name, description, input schema — from the schemas in the PolicyLayer scan database. Clients differ slightly in framing, so treat counts as close estimates.

02
Tokeniser

tiktoken o200k_base (GPT-4o/o-series). Anthropic's current tokeniser isn't published, so Claude's exact counts will differ; for English text and JSON schemas the totals are close enough to treat these as estimates.

03
Deferred loading

Some clients now defer schema loading (Claude Code's tool search; VS Code experimental grouping). You still pay per search and reload — and Cursor, Windsurf and Gemini CLI load everything upfront.

Computed 07-06-2026 from the PolicyLayer scan database over all 53 catalogued Website Search tools. Counts refresh with every site build.

Expose only the tools you use — the rest never enter your context.

A PolicyLayer grant scopes Website Search to the tools you actually allow. Ungranted definitions never load, and every call that does run is checked against policy first.

Free to start. No card required.

4,600+ MCP servers and 31,000+ tools scanned and risk-classified.

// GET IN TOUCH

Have a question or want to learn more? Send us a message.

Message sent.

We'll get back to you soon.