Home / Token cost / Omnifocus

The Omnifocus MCP server costs 6,361 tokens before the first call.

Connect Omnifocus and its 51 tool definitions are loaded into the model's context on every request — 3.2% of a 200k window spent before your agent does anything.

QUICK ANSWER The Omnifocus MCP server's tool definitions consume 6,361 tokens — 3.3× the median MCP server (1,905 tokens). A scoped grant exposing only the tools you use cuts that roughly in proportion.

MEASURED FROM SCHEMAS 51 tools · 6,361 tokens · 3.2% of 200k · 0.6% 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 3.2%
1M WINDOW 0.6%

Corpus context: Omnifocus ranks #942 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 6,361 tokens go.

Each row is one tool definition as a tools/list entry — name, description and input schema — counted with o200k_base. Average: 125 tokens per tool.

ToolCategoryTokens% of server
batch_create_tasks Write 456 7.2%
list_tasks Read 379 6.0%
create_task Write 359 5.6%
update_project Write 344 5.4%
update_task Write 340 5.3%
get_task_count Read 334 5.3%
create_project Write 334 5.3%
list_projects Read 175 2.8%
create_tag Write 146 2.3%
dump_database Write 137 2.2%
add_task_notification Write 136 2.1%
move_tasks Write 135 2.1%
set_task_tags Write 133 2.1%
sync_database Destructive 120 1.9%
update_tag Write 119 1.9%
get_task Read 115 1.8%
batch_delete_tasks Destructive 114 1.8%
batch_complete_tasks Write 114 1.8%
search Read 107 1.7%
list_perspectives Read 105 1.7%
duplicate_tasks Write 105 1.7%
create_folder Write 96 1.5%
update_folder Write 95 1.5%
complete_task Write 91 1.4%
get_project_tasks Read 87 1.4%
get_perspective_tasks Read 86 1.4%
remove_task_notification Destructive 85 1.3%
append_task_note Write 85 1.3%
move_project Write 85 1.3%
get_project Read 74 1.2%
convert_task_to_project Write 74 1.2%
mark_reviewed Write 72 1.1%
uncomplete_task Write 71 1.1%
get_database_summary Read 69 1.1%
get_folder Read 68 1.1%
delete_folder Destructive 67 1.1%
delete_project Destructive 67 1.1%
delete_tag Destructive 67 1.1%
delete_task Destructive 67 1.1%
drop_project Destructive 67 1.1%
drop_task Destructive 67 1.1%
list_task_notifications Read 67 1.1%
get_tag Read 66 1.0%
complete_project Write 66 1.0%
get_inbox_tasks Read 55 0.9%
save_database Write 45 0.7%
get_review_queue Read 44 0.7%
get_flagged_tasks Read 43 0.7%
get_today_completed_tasks Read 43 0.7%
list_folders Read 43 0.7%
list_tags Read 42 0.7%

Most agents use a handful of these tools. They pay for all 51.

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 (125 tokens each).

Grant scopeDefinition costReduction
All 51 tools (no gateway) 6,361 tokens
3 granted tools ~374 tokens −94%
5 granted tools ~624 tokens −90%
10 granted tools ~1,247 tokens −80%

Omnifocus token-cost questions.

How many tokens does the Omnifocus MCP server use?+

Its 51 tool definitions total 6,361 tokens — 3.2% 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 Omnifocus 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 Omnifocus's token usage?+

Expose fewer tools. A PolicyLayer grant scopes Omnifocus 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 374 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 51 catalogued Omnifocus tools. Counts refresh with every site build.

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

A PolicyLayer grant scopes Omnifocus 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.