chimeraforge
The Chimeraforge server is an MCP toolset that lets AI assistants plan and optimize self-hosted LLM deployments using measured data, hardware specs, and cost comparisons.
chimeraforge_plan — recommend the best model × quantization × backend × GPU-count deployment for a workload (or explain why nothing fits), with per-number provenance tags, SLO gates, budget limits, and multi-GPU/parallelism options.
chimeraforge_suggest — given a GPU, rank models that actually fit and meet latency/quality/budget targets, pulling from curated catalog, local Ollama, or Hugging Face.
chimeraforge_resolve_model — resolve a model id to real parameters and architecture to avoid hallucinated specs.
chimeraforge_list_hardware — list known GPUs with VRAM, bandwidth, TDP, and interconnect details.
chimeraforge_compare_api — compare self-hosting cost vs hosted-API cost for a workload and find the monthly volume where self-hosting breaks even, reporting the price snapshot's age.
Integrates with a local Ollama server to resolve model tags (e.g. ollama:qwen3:14b), plan model deployments, and run benchmarks against Ollama backends.
Chimeraforge
A local-first, model-agnostic LLM deployment planner. It turns "which model, quantization, GPU, and backend -- how many, will it fit, will it hit my SLO, what will it cost" into a fast, honest, measured answer, from your shell, your Python, or your AI assistant.
uvx chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB"The trust principle
Every number is labeled measured, extrapolated, derived, estimated, or unknown, and the tool refuses to fake the ones it can't stand behind. VRAM and KV-cache are derived -- exact arithmetic over the model's real architecture, not a measurement. Throughput is a measured lookup only on the rig the corpus was measured on; on any other GPU that row is scaled by memory bandwidth and reported as extrapolated, with the factor named, because a 13.8x bandwidth extrapolation is not a measurement of your card. Failing that it is an explicit roofline estimate -- never presented as data it isn't. Quality below the bundled corpus reports unknown, not a made-up score. A 0-result plan names the exact gate that rejected every candidate instead of a generic "nothing found." No telemetry, no phone-home, works air-gapped.
Give it a model -- a size class, a Hugging Face repo, an Ollama tag, or manual overrides for an unreleased model -- and it searches the (model x quantization x backend x GPU count x tensor/pipeline parallelism) space against VRAM, quality, latency, cost, energy, and an opt-in safety gate, then hands back the cheapest config that meets your SLO.
13 commands, one tool: plan - suggest - measure - workload - validate - catalog - safety - bench - eval - compare - refit - report - mcp.
The empirical corpus traces to Technical Reports TR108-TR137 (~204,000 real measurements on consumer GPUs). See the CHANGELOG for the full feature history.
Related MCP server: infra-advisor-mcp
Install
Try it with no install:
uvx chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB"
pipx run chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB"Install for real:
pip install chimeraforge # planner + model resolution (HF/Ollama) + suggest/measure/safety/bench
pip install "chimeraforge[bench]" # + GPU environment metadata for benchmarks (pynvml)
pip install "chimeraforge[mcp]" # + MCP server so Claude/GPT/Cursor can call the planner
pip install "chimeraforge[eval]" # + quality evaluation (ROUGE-L; BERTScore additionally needs `bert-score` + torch)
pip install "chimeraforge[refit]" # + coefficient refitting (numpy, scipy)
pip install "chimeraforge[all]" # everythingPython 3.10+. The core install covers the planner and network-facing commands (httpx is a core dep). plan / suggest / catalog run fully offline; bench / measure / safety need a running backend (Ollama, vLLM, or TGI). Windows / macOS / Linux.
Quickstart
# Plan a registry size class on your GPU
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --request-rate 2.0
# Plan ANY model -- a Hugging Face repo or an Ollama tag
chimeraforge plan --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB"
chimeraforge plan --model ollama:qwen3:14b --ollama-url http://localhost:11434
# Split a model too big for one GPU across several (tensor parallelism)
chimeraforge plan --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct --hardware "H100 80GB" --tp 4
# Shrink the KV-cache, print the cost/latency/quality trade-off menu
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4080 12GB" --kv-quant q8 --pareto
# Benchmark a live model and plan on the MEASURED numbers
chimeraforge plan --model qwen3:14b --measure
# Discover + rank what fits your GPU and budget
chimeraforge suggest --source ollama --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --budget 500Plan with your traffic, not your guesses
chimeraforge workload --from-log requests.jsonl --out workload.json
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --workload-profile workload.jsonDerives the request rate, prompt and output lengths, traffic variance and prefix-cache hit rate from a request log or a live vLLM/SGLang /metrics endpoint. The variance one matters most: plan otherwise takes it as one of four presets, and it drives the whole queueing tail.
Metric names are per-engine and explicit -- vLLM has renamed two of these between versions, and a scraper that silently falls back to a stale name reports a fabricated measurement. An unknown engine is an error, and a field the source did not expose stays absent rather than acquiring a default.
Decision briefs
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --request-rate 2 --report brief.mdWrites a markdown record of the decision: the recommendation, every assumption as an input rather than a finding, the alternatives table, the planner's warnings verbatim, and the exact command that regenerates it. Each number is tagged measured / extrapolated / derived / estimated / unknown in prose, not just with a symbol.
It refuses to render on a stale price snapshot and exits non-zero, rather than printing an old price in a nicer font -- a formatted document reads as more durable than a terminal line, and its reader will not re-derive the arithmetic.
MCP server -- give Claude / GPT / Cursor the same numbers
GPU sizing is exactly where assistants fail: training-cutoff hardware prices and specs, plus error-prone KV-cache/batching arithmetic done from memory. chimeraforge mcp runs a stdio MCP server so an assistant calls the real planner against measured data instead of guessing.
pip install "chimeraforge[mcp]"Claude Code:
claude mcp add --transport stdio chimeraforge -- uvx --from "chimeraforge[mcp]" chimeraforge mcpClaude Desktop / Cursor (add to your MCP config file):
{
"mcpServers": {
"chimeraforge": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "chimeraforge[mcp]", "chimeraforge", "mcp"]
}
}
}The --from "chimeraforge[mcp]" pulls in the MCP SDK; uvx runs the server in a self-contained environment. If you have already pip install "chimeraforge[mcp]" into the environment your client launches, you can instead use "command": "chimeraforge", "args": ["mcp"].
Exposes five tools: chimeraforge_plan (the full gate search), chimeraforge_suggest (the inverse -- rank what actually fits a given GPU), chimeraforge_compare_api (self-host vs hosted-API cost and the break-even volume), chimeraforge_resolve_model (grounds a model id in its real params/architecture), and chimeraforge_list_hardware. Every result carries the same measured / extrapolated / estimated / unknown provenance as the CLI, and the tool descriptions tell the model to prefer them over its own knowledge. chimeraforge_plan also returns a launch field -- the serve command for the recommended config -- so the assistant can answer "and how do I run it" without inventing flags. chimeraforge_compare_api prices against a dated snapshot and reports its age, so an assistant quotes a price with its capture date rather than presenting a stale figure as current.
Commands
plan -- predictive capacity planner
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --request-rate 2.0
chimeraforge plan --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" # any HF repo
chimeraforge plan --model ollama:qwen3:14b --ollama-url http://localhost:11434 # any Ollama tag
chimeraforge plan --model Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct --hardware "H100 80GB" --tp 4 # multi-GPU
chimeraforge plan --model-size 3b --kv-quant q4 --pareto # smaller KV cache, trade-off menu
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --launch # + the serve command to actually run it
chimeraforge plan --model-size 3b --workload agent --safety-target 0.85 --jsonPlans any model: registry size class, HF repo (
org/name), Ollama tag, or manual overrides (--params-b/--n-layers/...).Searches (model x quantization x backend x N-replicas x batch/GPU) through a 5-gate pipeline: VRAM -> quality -> safety (opt-in) -> latency -> budget.
Models real serving physics: continuous batching (vLLM/TGI), prefill/decode split (TTFT + TPOT), KV-cache-bound concurrency, and variance-aware queueing (
--workload).Fits models too big for one GPU:
--tensor-parallel/--tp {N|auto}shards weights + KV across N GPUs (Megatron-style, comms-modelled);--pipeline-parallel/--pp {N|auto}splits layers across N stages instead (cheaper on slow interconnects, needs batching to fill the pipeline). Not combinable yet.Serves what the backend serves: GGUF quants are offered on Ollama; vLLM/TGI get FP16 and FP8 (only on GPUs with FP8 tensor cores -- Ada/Hopper/Blackwell/CDNA3). The planner no longer suggests a GGUF checkpoint on vLLM priced with a llama.cpp speedup.
KV-cache quantization (
--kv-quant {fp16,q8,q4}) shrinks the cache and raises max concurrency -- biggest win at long context.Heterogeneous fleets (
--fleet "H100 80GB,A100 80GB,L4 24GB"): sizes a mix of GPU types instead of N copies of one, because a cheap GPU can win at loose SLOs and small requests while an expensive one wins at tight SLOs and long requests. On an 8B at 250 req/s that is 3x H100 + 1x L4 at $5,760/mo against 6x A100 at $6,912 -- 16.7% cheaper, because the last few req/s are cheaper on a small GPU than on another big one (plan --model-size 8b --request-rate 250 --fleet "H100 80GB,A100 80GB,L4 24GB" --budget 100000). A mix presumes a capability-aware router that no serving engine ships, so every mixed plan says so, and the reported provenance is the worst across the types used rather than the best.Cost realism (
--duty-cycle,--gpu-price-multiplier): the headline $/1M-tok prices a saturated fleet. You also pay for provisioned headroom and for every idle hour, so the effective figure on an 8B at 2 req/s on an H100 is $2.71/1M at full duty and $9.04/1M at 30%, against $0.71 at capacity (plan --model-size 8b --request-rate 2 --hardware "H100 80GB" --budget 100000 --duty-cycle 0.3). Spot/reserved pricing is your input, not a bundled guess.Self-host vs API break-even (
--compare-api): prices your workload against hosted APIs and reports the monthly volume where self-hosting starts winning. Prices are a dated snapshot with a source URL per provider, flagged stale past 90 days -- never presented as a live quote -- and a frontier API is labeled as a different quality tier rather than passed off as like-for-like.Prefix caching (
--prefix-cache-hit-rate): chatbot and agent traffic reuse a long system prompt, so most of the prefill is already cached. At a 4k prompt and a 90% hit rate an 8B on an H100 goes from 166ms to 17ms TTFT (plan --model-size 8b --prompt-tokens 4096 --hardware "H100 80GB" --budget 100000 --prefix-cache-hit-rate 0.9); the same query on the reference RTX 4080 is 2051ms to 205ms. Defaults to 0 and is never inferred, and the KV a shared prefix saves is deliberately not deducted -- under-sizing KV is what turns "it fits" into an OOM.Reasoning models (
--reasoning-tokens N): hidden thinking tokens are decoded by the GPU and held in KV even though the caller never sees them. Counting only visible output under-counts decode by the reasoning ratio -- 1000 hidden tokens take an 8B plan on an H100 from 193ms to 3664ms p95 (plan --model-size 8b --hardware "H100 80GB" --budget 100000 --reasoning-tokens 1000). Defaults to 0 and is never inferred: the ratio is a property of your workload, not the weights.Attention-shape aware KV: MLA (DeepSeek-V2/V3) caches a compressed latent rather than per-head K/V -- sizing it as GQA overstates DeepSeek-V3's cache by 57x -- and sliding-window models stop growing the cache past the window. A window whose layer pattern isn't declared is not applied, because under-sizing KV is what turns "it fits" into an OOM.
Mixture-of-Experts aware: VRAM sizes on total params (every expert stays resident) while throughput and TTFT use active params (a token only reads the experts it routes to). Treating an MoE model as dense under-predicts its throughput by 3.6x on Mixtral-8x7B and ~18x on DeepSeek-V3. Active counts are derived from the model's real expert geometry and match published figures.
Energy (
--electricity-rate): monthly kWh cost,$/1M-tok (+energy), and tok/s-per-watt, reported alongside (not folded into) the budget gate.Launch-command export (
--launch): emits thevllm serve/ollama run/ TGIdocker runcommand for the winning config, with the plan's own context length, TP/PP degree, batch size, and KV dtype filled in -- the flags that are error-prone to hand-compute. It won't fabricate what it can't derive: a GGUF quant level becomes a note to serve the native-equivalent checkpoint, not an invented--quantizationflag.Per-prediction provenance (
measured/extrapolated/derived/estimated/unknown); explains the binding gate when nothing fits.Validated on registry data: VRAM R^2=0.968, throughput R^2=0.859, quality RMSE=0.062, latency MAPE=1.05% (beats analytical M/D/1 by 20.4x, TR133). No ML -- empirical lookup tables with first-principles interpolation (roofline for off-registry models).
suggest -- discover & rank models
chimeraforge suggest --source ollama --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --budget 500
chimeraforge suggest --source hf --hf-limit 8 --hardware "RTX 4080 12GB"
chimeraforge suggest --source catalog --hardware "RTX 4080 12GB" # offline, after `catalog --build`Pulls candidates from a live Ollama (/api/tags), the HF Hub (top text-generation), and/or the local catalog; resolves each to real params/arch, runs the same gate search, and shows the best config per model.
measure -- benchmark live, plan on real numbers
chimeraforge measure --model qwen3:14b --ollama-url http://localhost:11434
chimeraforge plan --model qwen3:14b --measure # measure then plan in one stepBenchmarks the live model (real N=1 throughput, service time, concurrency scaling) and folds it into a local corpus. plan / suggest then prefer the measured numbers automatically (provenance flips to measured).
workload -- derive plan inputs from real traffic
chimeraforge workload --from-log requests.jsonl --out workload.json
chimeraforge workload --from-metrics http://localhost:8000/metrics --engine vllm --out workload.json
chimeraforge plan --model-size 8b --hardware "RTX 4090 24GB" --workload-profile workload.jsonReads the request rate, prompt/output lengths, traffic variance and prefix-cache hit rate off a JSONL request log or a live vLLM/SGLang /metrics endpoint, so plan stops taking them as typed-in guesses. The variance one matters most -- it drives the whole queueing tail, and a measured CV^2 is not one of four presets.
Metric names are per-engine and explicit; an unknown --engine is an error and pointing the wrong one at an endpoint fails loud, because a scraper that silently falls back to a renamed metric reports a fabricated measurement. A log yields measured mean and variance; a Prometheus histogram yields an exact mean but a bucket-approximated variance, labeled estimated. A single scrape is not a rate, so request_rate stays absent rather than being divided out of an unmeasured uptime -- and any field the source did not expose stays a required input to plan, never a default. An explicit flag always beats the profile.
validate -- audit predictions against measurements
chimeraforge validate --matrix matrix.json --measurements captured.jsonScores the planner's own predictions by provenance class, so "estimated" carries a number instead of a vibe. The config matrix is fingerprinted into the audit (SHA-256, order-independent). Pass that hash back with --expect-fingerprint <hash> and the command fails unless the matrix still hashes to it, so a matrix edited after seeing results cannot be passed off as the one that was registered -- pre-registration, not post-hoc selection. Without the flag the fingerprint is recomputed from whatever matrix was loaded and only printed, which proves nothing on its own. Every cell is published, the worst case survives aggregation rather than being averaged away, and a class with too few cells is labeled underpowered instead of quoted as a rate.
catalog -- local model catalog
chimeraforge catalog --build # resolve a curated seed (+ --with-ollama) and cache specs
chimeraforge catalog # list the cached catalogPersists resolved specs so suggest --source catalog ranks a known-good set fully offline.
safety -- live refusal screen
chimeraforge safety --model llama3.2-3b --prompts harmful.txt --quant Q4_K_M --safety-target 0.85Where plan --safety-target decides from bundled TR134/TR142 data, safety measures: it runs your probe prompts against a live model, classifies refusals (rule-based -- the TR134 regex baseline), reports the measured refusal rate vs the bundled gate data (expected, drift, RTSI risk tier), and exits 1 below --safety-target. You provide the prompts (--prompts, one per line) -- no attack corpus ships with the package; point it at HarmBench / AdvBench / your own set. Needs a running Ollama.
bench -- live inference benchmarking
chimeraforge bench --model llama3.2-3b --runs 5
chimeraforge bench --model llama3.2-3b --all-quants --context 512,1024,2048,4096 --json
chimeraforge bench --model llama3.2-3b --backend vllm --base-url http://localhost:8000Three workload profiles (single / batch / server-Poisson); measures throughput, TTFT, and latency with p50/p90/p95/p99; CV-based stability warnings; JSON output.
eval -- quality evaluation
chimeraforge eval --task general_knowledge --json
chimeraforge eval --predictions preds.txt --references refs.txt --model llama3.2-3bMetrics: exact match, ROUGE-L (LCS fallback), BERTScore, coherence -> composite (0.2*EM + 0.3*ROUGE + 0.3*BERT + 0.2*coherence). Quality tiers from TR125; 3 built-in tasks (general_knowledge, summarization, code). Pass --fp16-baseline to classify the drop tier.
compare -- diff benchmark runs
chimeraforge compare --baseline run1.json --candidate run2.json,run3.json --jsonMatches configs by (model, backend, quant, workload, context_length); computes throughput/TTFT/duration deltas with an aggregate improvement/regression summary.
refit -- update planner coefficients
chimeraforge refit --bench-dir ./results/ --output fitted_models.json --validateBayesian blending (per-key confidence weighting), hardware offsets, power-law refitting, and a 10-check validation suite that gates the write (--validate).
report -- generate reports
chimeraforge report --results-dir ./results/ --format markdown --output report.mdMarkdown (GitHub-compatible) and self-contained, XSS-safe HTML; statistical analysis (RMSE, MAE, MAPE, R^2) with per-config percentile tables.
mcp -- serve the planner to AI assistants
chimeraforge mcpRuns the stdio MCP server described above. Requires pip install "chimeraforge[mcp]".
What's modeled
Dimension | How it's computed | Provenance |
VRAM / KV-cache | First-principles from real model architecture; KV-quant and TP/PP-aware sharding | derived (exact arithmetic) |
Max concurrency | KV-cache-bound sequences per GPU | exact |
Throughput (decode) | Measured lookup on the reference rig; bandwidth-scaled off it elsewhere; else roofline | measured / extrapolated / estimated |
TTFT (prefill) | Compute-bound, GPU FP16 TFLOPS x MFU | estimated |
Quality | Measured composite lookup, family-prior estimate, or unknown | measured / estimated / unknown |
Cost | GPU $/hr x fleet size ($/1M-tok invariant in replica count) | exact |
Energy | TDP-driven monthly kWh, $/1M-tok (+energy), tok/s-per-watt | estimated |
Safety | TR134/TR142 refusal-rate lookup (opt-in gate) | measured / unknown |
Hardware: 22 GPUs -- consumer Ampere/Ada/Blackwell (RTX 30/40/50-series), datacenter (A100 40/80GB, H100, H200, B200, L4, T4), and AMD MI300X -- each with VRAM, bandwidth, FP16 TFLOPS, TDP, and interconnect (NVLink/Infinity Fabric/PCIe).
Known limits (honest): Speculative decoding is not yet modeled. Prefix caching models the prefill saving but not the KV saving (deliberately conservative). Reasoning tokens are modeled but the ratio is your input (--reasoning-tokens), never inferred. For MoE, active-vs-total params are modeled, but expert parallelism and routing load-imbalance are not. Multi-LoRA sizes adapter VRAM exactly, but its decode cost is a rank-indexed estimate from a single published sweep, and per-adapter KV fragmentation is not modeled. Heterogeneous fleets solve the allocation exactly but assume a request router that no engine currently provides, and inherit the throughput-estimate error of every GPU type in the mix. Quant coverage for vLLM/TGI/SGLang is FP16 + FP8 + AWQ/GPTQ; FP8 and W4A16 quality are estimated, not measured -- the TR quality corpus only covers GGUF k-quants. TP and PP throughput are comms-modelled estimates, not measured, and can't be combined in one plan. Queueing is analytical (variance-aware), not a discrete-event simulator. The bundled corpus is fit primarily on one rig (RTX 4080 12GB); other GPUs scale from bandwidth/compute until you measure on yours. The MCP server is stdio-only (Claude Code/Desktop, local Cursor) -- no hosted remote transport yet.
What the research decided
Phase 2 (TR123-TR133, ~106,000 measurements) distilled into an artifact-backed deployment framework -- the same rules the planner applies:
Decision | Recommendation | Evidence |
Single-agent backend | Ollama Q4_K_M | Highest throughput/dollar; quality within -4.1pp (TR123-TR125) |
Multi-agent backend (N>=4) | vLLM FP16 | 2.25x advantage from continuous batching (TR130-TR132) |
Compile policy | Prefill only, Linux, Inductor+Triton | 24-60% speedup; decode crashes 100% (TR126) |
Quantization | Q4_K_M default; Q8_0 quality-critical; never Q2_K | Universal sweet spot across 5 models (TR125) |
Context budget | Ollama for >4K tokens on 12 GB | VRAM spillover = 25-105x cliffs (TR127) |
Capacity planning |
| Validated R^2>=0.859; beats M/D/1 by 20.4x (TR133) |
Safety screening |
| Refusal-rate + RTSI risk per config; rejects safety-collapsing cells (TR134/TR142) |
Headline findings (full data in the TRs): Rust beats Python single-agent (+15.2% throughput, -58% TTFT, -67% memory -- TR112); dual Ollama reaches near-perfect multi-agent parallelism (~99%) vs 82.2% on one instance (TR110/TR113/TR114); vLLM's continuous batching gives a 2.25x edge at N=8, bottlenecked on GPU memory bandwidth, not the stack (TR130-TR132).
Full research: docs/archive/technical_reports.md indexes all 32 reports; the full archive with methodology and raw-data references lives in outputs/publish_ready/reports/.
How the numbers are made
~204,000 primary measurements across 32 technical reports (TR108-TR137 + the TR142/TR146 safety provenance), on an RTX 4080 Laptop (12 GB; 192-bit GDDR6, 432 GB/s), which is the reference rig every cross-GPU estimate is scaled from. De-duplicated: TR137/TR142 are syntheses of already-counted data.
Rigor: fresh-process isolation per run (no warm-cache bias), forced cold starts, 3-5 runs per config for statistical confidence, structured JSON/CSV logging with full provenance. Every claim traces to raw data you can re-run.
Program context: ChimeraForge is the actionable CLI splice of the parent Banterhearts program (~1,337,000 primary + judge measurements across 54 TRs); the safety attack-surface and serving-stack research lives in sibling repos.
1,571 automated tests (
pytest tests/) cover the planner models, gate search, resolver, discovery, safety, bench backends, and the MCP server -- GPU-decoupled, no live backend required for the core suite.
Reproduce any number: find the claim in a report under outputs/publish_ready/reports/, follow its reference to the data folder, inspect the CSV/JSON, and re-run the provided scripts or notebooks. See docs/archive/methodology.md.
Repository layout
Path | Contents |
| The |
| Python agent benchmarking, monitoring, profiling |
| Rust single- and multi-agent implementations (Tokio + 4 alt runtimes) |
| Canonical TR archive (TR108-TR137) + syntheses -- start here for findings |
| Guides, API reference, and the technical-report index -- start here for how-to |
| Reproduction scaffold, baselines, and raw benchmark artifacts |
Documentation
docs/README.md-- documentation index and navigationdocs/quick_start.md-- first benchmark run (Python + Rust)docs/API.md-- Python API reference for the packagedocs/archive/technical_reports.md-- index of all 32 technical reportsdocs/archive/dual_ollama_setup.md-- required for reproducing multi-agent resultsdocs/archive/methodology.md/docs/archive/rust_vs_python.md-- methodology and the full language comparison
Contributing
Contributions welcome -- see CONTRIBUTING.md. Good areas: additional benchmark configs, new optimization strategies, more models/hardware, docs, and analysis tools.
License
MIT -- see LICENSE.
Acknowledgments
Conducted as part of the Banterhearts LLM Performance Research Program: Phase 1 (TR108-TR122) established the measurement methodology and cross-language comparison, Phase 2 (TR123-TR133) produced the deployment framework and capacity planner, and Phase 3 (TR134-TR137) measured the safety cost of inference optimization -- now the planner's opt-in safety gate.
Repository: https://github.com/Sahil170595/Chimeraforge - PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/chimeraforge/ - Status: Beta, actively developed
Available Tools
5 toolschimeraforge_compare_apiA
Compare self-hosting against the hosted APIs for a workload: sizes the cheapest feasible GPU fleet, prices the same traffic through each API model, and gives the monthly output-token volume where the two break even. Use for 'is it cheaper to self-host or use the API', 'when does a GPU pay for itself'. API prices come from a dated snapshot -- the result reports its age and flags it when stale; say so rather than quoting an old price as current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| hardware | Yes | ||
| duty_cycle | No | ||
| model_size | No | 8b | |
| request_rate | No | ||
| allow_network | No | ||
| prompt_tokens | No | ||
| context_length | No | ||
| latency_slo_ms | No | ||
| quality_target | No | ||
| reasoning_tokens | No | ||
| avg_output_tokens | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses that API prices come from a dated snapshot, that the result reports its age and flags staleness, and instructs the agent not to present old prices as current. This is a meaningful, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the first explains what the tool computes, the second gives real user intents, and the third warns about stale pricing. The outcome is well structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete on purpose, behavior, and the staleness caveat, but it does not cover the 12-parameter input surface or any expected return format beyond the three high-level outputs. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, that leaves a meaningful completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 12 parameters, so the description needed to compensate. It only implies concepts like workload and traffic without explaining properties such as hardware, model, duty_cycle, latency_slo_ms, quality_target, or avg_output_tokens. An agent would struggle to set these correctly based solely on this description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action (compare), a specific subject (self-hosting vs. hosted APIs), and the three concrete outputs: cheapest feasible GPU fleet sizing, price comparison for identical traffic, and break-even token volume. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'plan' and 'suggest'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit, user-quoted use cases: 'is it cheaper to self-host or use the API' and 'when does a GPU pay for itself'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to use a sibling tool instead, so it stops slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
chimeraforge_list_hardwareA
List known GPUs with VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, size limits, or whether it reflects real-time data. The simple listing implies read-only behavior but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the core action and output characteristics. There is no wasted text, and it is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource (GPUs) and the key attributes (VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect). However, it could marginally benefit from a note on data recency or ordering, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed. Since there are no parameters, no additional semantic information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List known GPUs' with specific attributes (VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from siblings like chimeraforge_plan and chimeraforge_resolve_model.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely functional with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
chimeraforge_planB
Recommend the best (model x quantization x backend x GPU-count) deployment for a workload, or report why nothing fits. Returns candidates with per-number provenance (measured/extrapolated/estimated/unknown). Use for: 'what GPU do I need for ', 'will fit on ', 'how many GPUs for N req/s', 'what will it cost'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| hardware | Yes | ||
| kv_quant | No | fp16 | |
| workload | No | steady | |
| lora_rank | No | ||
| duty_cycle | No | ||
| model_size | No | 3b | |
| lora_target | No | qv | |
| tpot_slo_ms | No | ||
| ttft_slo_ms | No | ||
| request_rate | No | ||
| allow_network | No | ||
| allow_offload | No | ||
| lora_adapters | No | ||
| prompt_tokens | No | ||
| safety_target | No | ||
| context_length | No | ||
| latency_slo_ms | No | ||
| quality_target | No | ||
| tensor_parallel | No | ||
| budget_usd_month | No | ||
| reasoning_tokens | No | ||
| avg_output_tokens | No | ||
| pipeline_parallel | No | ||
| host_bandwidth_gbps | No | ||
| gpu_price_multiplier | No | ||
| prefix_cache_hit_rate | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that output includes per-number provenance (measured/extrapolated/estimated/unknown) and that it may report 'why nothing fits,' which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe any side effects, required permissions, or assumptions about how the tool processes inputs (e.g., that it may reach out to hardware databases). It also doesn't clarify whether it performs network access (despite an 'allow_network' parameter). The described behavior is minimal but not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then the provenance detail, then a list of example queries. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the most important information (what it does and returns). This is exactly how a tool description should be written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 27 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is just two sentences. It does not explain the required 'hardware' parameter, the meaning of numeric parameters like 'duty_cycle' or 'safety_target', or how the 'model' parameter interacts with 'model_size'. It also doesn't specify the output format beyond 'candidates with provenance', leaving out details on how the agent should interpret results. The examples give some context, but for an agent to correctly fill all parameters and interpret results, the description is woefully incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions the high-level concepts of 'model x quantization x backend x GPU-count' but does not explain any of the 27 parameters, their units, defaults, or relationships. For example, 'hardware' is the only required parameter but its format is unspecified (a GPU name? a type?). 'kv_quant', 'workload', 'lora_rank', and many others are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of docs, leaving an agent to guess parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: recommending a deployment configuration (model, quantization, backend, GPU-count) for a workload, with a fallback to report why nothing fits. It also mentions return of candidates with provenance. This is specific and uses a clear verb+resource pattern. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'chimeraforge_suggest', which could be seen as overlapping in purpose. The use-case examples ('what GPU do I need', 'will <model> fit') add clarity but do not formally exclude misuse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage contexts: 'Use for: ...' with four concrete question patterns. This gives an agent clear conditions for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or direct it to alternative siblings (e.g., 'compare_api' for comparing specific APIs, or 'suggest' for broader recommendations). The absence of exclusions leaves some ambiguity, but the stated use cases are strong enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
chimeraforge_resolve_modelB
Resolve a model id to real params/architecture (grounds hallucinated specs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| allow_network | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool resolves/grounds specs, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, network usage, failure handling, or what happens when a model id cannot be resolved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'grounds hallucinated specs' adds relevant context without bloating the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally actionable and communicates the core purpose and expected result, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves important context unexplained, especially around `allow_network` and failure behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at the `model` parameter via 'model id' and says nothing about the `allow_network` parameter, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Resolve a model id to real params/architecture' and adds the functional purpose 'grounds hallucinated specs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chimeraforge_plan and chimeraforge_list_hardware.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is implied: use this when a model id may be hallucinated and needs to be resolved to concrete architecture/params. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with the alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
chimeraforge_suggestA
Rank the models that actually fit and hit the SLO on a given GPU -- the inverse of planning. Use for 'what can I run on a 4090', 'best model for 12GB'. Sources: catalog (offline curated set), ollama (locally installed), hf (top Hub repos).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| source | No | catalog | |
| hardware | Yes | ||
| hf_limit | No | ||
| ollama_url | No | ||
| request_rate | No | ||
| context_length | No | ||
| latency_slo_ms | No | ||
| quality_target | No | ||
| budget_usd_month | No | ||
| avg_output_tokens | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates core behavior: ranking models against a fit/SLO objective and drawing from three sources: catalog, ollama, and hf. However, it does not disclose external interactions (e.g., reaching out to Ollama or Hugging Face), side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences carry the core behavior, user-facing examples, and source list without redundancy. The most important action is front-loaded: 'Rank the models...' instead of burying the intent in filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core purpose and high-level sources, which is enough to make a reasonable first call with the one required parameter. However, with 11 parameters, no output schema, no annotation safety clues, and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description omits too much detail to fully steer an agent through meaningful variations of source, SLO, latency, and quality trade-offs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning to the source concept ('catalog', 'ollama', 'hf') and general context around SLO. The other 10 parameters, including latency_slo_ms, request_rate, quality_target, hf_limit, and budget_usd_month, are left to the agent to infer from their names and defaults, which is risky for a tool with this much configuration surface.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and object: 'Rank the models that actually fit and hit the SLO on a given GPU.' It clearly identifies itself as the inverse of planning, which separates it from its most likely sibling confusion. The example use cases ('what can I run on a 4090', 'best model for 12GB') make the intent immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage framing with quoted examples and explicitly contrasts it with planning. It would be stronger if it also stated when not to use it or pointed to the sibling tools, but the 'inverse of planning' hint gives the agent enough context to route appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.30.0- Added
chimeraforge_compare_api - Changed
chimeraforge_plan10 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / allow_offloadAdded value: +{ + "default": false, + "title": "Allow Offload", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / gpu_price_multiplierAdded value: +{ + "default": 1, + "title": "Gpu Price Multiplier", + "type": "number" +} - added
Input schema / properties / host_bandwidth_gbpsAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Host Bandwidth Gbps" +} - added
Input schema / properties / lora_adaptersAdded value: +{ + "default": 0, + "title": "Lora Adapters", + "type": "integer" +} - added
Input schema / properties / lora_rankAdded value: +{ + "default": 16, + "title": "Lora Rank", + "type": "integer" +} - added
Input schema / properties / lora_targetAdded value: +{ + "default": "qv", + "title": "Lora Target", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / safety_targetAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Safety Target" +} - added
Input schema / properties / tpot_slo_msAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Tpot Slo Ms" +} - added
Input schema / properties / ttft_slo_msAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Ttft Slo Ms" +} - added
Input schema / properties / workloadAdded value: +{ + "default": "steady", + "title": "Workload", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
chimeraforge_suggest
3 tool updates
- First observed
chimeraforge_list_hardware - First observed
chimeraforge_plan - First observed
chimeraforge_resolve_model
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: model resolution, deployment planning, hardware listing, API-vs-self-host cost comparison, and inverse model suggestion for a given GPU. The most similar pair, plan and suggest, is explicitly described as inverse directions, so an agent should not confuse them.
All tools share the consistent chimeraforge_ prefix and a clear action verb, making them easy to scan. However, resolve_model, list_hardware, and compare_api follow a verb_noun pattern while plan and suggest are just bare verbs, creating a minor inconsistency.
Five tools is a compact, well-scoped surface for this server's purpose. Each tool covers a distinct part of the model-deployment decision workflow, and none of them feel redundant or extraneous.
The core workflow is well covered: resolve a model, plan a deployable setup, list available hardware, compare hosting costs, and find models that fit a GPU. A minor gap is that API price snapshots and model catalogs are exposed as static sources without an explicit refresh tool, but staleness is at least reported and flagged.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Will this LLM fit on your GPU, multi-GPU rig or Mac? Exact VRAM & KV-cache math. Read-only.
GPU and LLM inference benchmarks, hardware evidence, deployment recommendations, and launch configs.
Will a local LLM run on your hardware? GGUF quant, buy-vs-rent-vs-API cost, used-GPU prices.
New LLM releases daily: which models became deployable, context window, pricing.
161
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceGlobal price benchmarking for AI inference across 2,600+ SKUs from 47 vendors. Query live pricing, market indexes, and model specs via 8 tools. Free tier available.8103MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEstimates GPU requirements, training/inference costs, and cloud-vs-on-prem TCO for AI workloads using deterministic calculators.121MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenancePredict the cost of an LLM call before you make it, and pick the cheapest model that still does the job, offline, from your editor.788Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceToken cost math for LLM API calls: current per-million-token rates for 69 models across 17 providers, with local arithmetic for estimates, comparisons and monthly budgets. Rates are verified and date-stamped.562MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sahil170595/Chimeraforge'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server