overton
MCP server for Overton, an admission control daemon that gates coding agent dispatch based on per-account and per-project budget allocation. It lets agents ask for permission to run, returning verdicts such as go, wait, ask, or deny with retry timing to prevent overspending.
README
Overton
Admission control for the coding agents you already pay for.
The Overton window: the range of dispatches currently acceptable.
You have four subscriptions and seven projects. Every orchestrator on your machine — Symphony, Paperclip, gastown, a cron script — will happily spawn an agent the moment it has work, because none of them know what the others are spending. Plan limits are per account. Ambition is per project. Nothing reconciles the two, so every project independently concludes it is on pace while together they are well over.
Overton is a small daemon that does exactly one thing: decide who may run, on whose budget, right now.
$ overton ask sideproject claude-personal
wait 4h12m · sideproject is over its weekly allocation on claude-personal
account claude-personal 7d 43% used (target 85, your reserve 15)
project sideproject alloc 17.5 pts used 21.3 pts
clock 32% of the window elapsed → allowance 6.4 pts
reading ok, 41s old
over by 14.9 pts. At this rate it finishes the window at 66.5 pts (380% of alloc).
→ try --account claude-work (2.1 of 40.0 pts used)
→ run it anyway with --force — logged, and counted against the next window
→ wait 4d19h — the clock catches up
It does not run agents. No worktrees, no tickets, no PRs, no merge queue. Sixty tools do that and they get better every month. Overton sits in front of them.
Four verbs
| Meter | Every account's real 5h / 7d utilization, from the vendor's own authority — not an estimate. |
| Attribute | A ledger of what each project actually spent from each account window. |
| Allocate | Weighted fair share of a rolling window. Reroute capacity between projects by changing one number. |
| Gate | A typed decision — go / wait / ask / deny — with a reason, a remedy, and a retry-after. |
Why a verdict and not a boolean
"No" has three meanings, and an orchestrator that cannot tell them apart either hammers a gate that will refuse it for four days, or gives up on a window that reopens in ten minutes.
| verdict | meaning | what the caller should do | exit code |
|---|---|---|---|
go |
budget and capacity available | dispatch | 0 |
wait |
time fixes this | sleep retryAfterSec, ask again |
10 |
ask |
a human fixes this | escalate; do not retry on a timer | 11 |
deny |
policy fixes this | never retry; this pairing is not allowed | 12 |
overton ask myproject claude-personal || case $? in
10) sleep "$(overton ask myproject claude-personal --json | jq .retryAfterSec)" ;;
12) echo "not allowed on this account, ever"; exit 1 ;;
esac
Install
Needs Bun ≥ 1.3.
git clone https://github.com/hookdump/overton && cd overton
bun install
bun link # puts `overton` on your PATH
overton init # writes ~/.overton/config.yaml
$EDITOR ~/.overton/config.yaml
overton doctor # verify credentials before you rely on it
overton meter # poll every account once
overton status
$ overton status
ACCOUNT PROVIDER PLAN 7d 5h READING CLAIMS
--------------- --------- ---- ---------------- --- --------- ------
claude-personal anthropic max [####------] 43% 14% 3s ago 0/6
claude-work anthropic team [----------] 0% 0% 2s ago 0/6
codex-personal codex plus [----------] 4% — 20h3m ago 0/6
ollama unmetered — unmetered — 1s ago 0/2
PROJECT ACCOUNT SHARE USED/ALLOWED PACE VERDICT
-------- --------------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------
loopdeck claude-personal 75% 0.0/19.2 under 19.2 go
loopdeck codex-personal 100% 0.0/22.2 under 22.2 go
overton claude-personal 25% 0.0/6.4 under 6.4 go
Using it
The simplest integration is the wrapper — ask, hold capacity, run, release:
overton run myproject claude-personal -- claude -p "fix issue 42"
Or wire it into whatever you already use. Three surfaces, same answers:
overton ask myproject claude-personal # CLI, exit code carries the verdict
curl 'localhost:7787/v1/ask?project=P&account=A' # HTTP, always 200, decision in the body
overton mcp # MCP over stdio, so an agent can ask
See docs/04-integration.md for recipes covering
Symphony, Paperclip, GitHub Actions and a bare shell loop.
Configuration
accounts:
claude-personal:
provider: anthropic
config_dir: ~/.claude-profiles/personal
weekly_target_pct: 85 # account-wide stop, all projects
interactive_reserve_pct: 15 # held back for YOUR terminal work
max_concurrent: 6
projects:
bigapp:
roots: [~/Projects/bigapp]
accounts:
claude-personal: { weekly_share: 3 }
sideproject:
roots: [~/Projects/sideproject]
accounts:
claude-personal: { weekly_share: 1 }
# claude-work is simply not named, so it may never be used
Two things about that file do most of the work.
A share is of the dispatchable pool, not of the plan. 85 − 15 = 70 points
are available to agents; bigapp gets ¾ of them and sideproject ¼. Your own
interactive work is never what gets squeezed.
Shares are weights, normalised across every project naming the account. You reroute capacity by changing one number and the others absorb it — there is no column to keep summing to 1.0 by hand.
How it decides
provider ──▶ reading ──▶ epoch ──▶ ledger ──▶ facts ──▶ policy chain ──▶ decision
(vendor's (windows, (one (per- (pure (worst (verdict,
authority) freshness) window project data) verdict reason,
instance) points) wins) retry)
Every policy rules on every request and the worst verdict wins — not the first match. With first-match, correctness depends on the order of a list in a config file, and reordering it to "put the cheap checks first" can silently let a budget policy be pre-empted. With worst-wins, no ordering of any policy set can produce a more permissive answer than its strictest member.
overton explain <project> <account> prints every fact behind a decision.
Extending it
Three registries, one shape. Implement the interface, register it, name it in config.
| Extend | To add | Docs |
|---|---|---|
Provider |
a new vendor's windows (Gemini, Copilot, Qwen, Kiro…) | docs/02-providers.md |
CostSource |
a new transcript format to attribute by | docs/02-providers.md |
Policy |
a rule of your own — quiet hours, per-model caps, cost ceilings | docs/03-policies.md |
A policy you add cannot accidentally weaken the built-ins. It can only tighten them, because of worst-wins.
What it deliberately is not
- A harness. It never invokes an agent.
overton runspawns your command and gets out of the way. - An orchestrator. No tickets, no worktrees, no merge queue.
- A fleet TUI.
overton statusis a table, not a dashboard. - A proxy. Your credentials are never routed through it; it reads them to ask the vendor about your own usage, nothing more.
- Multi-user. Tailscale is the perimeter. It binds loopback and has no auth.
Honesty rules
A budget arbiter that is confidently wrong is worse than none, so:
- Unknown is never reported as zero. A provider that cannot reach its source says so. "Unknown" and "0% used" produce opposite decisions.
- A degraded reading may only tighten a gate, never open one. Enforced mechanically, with a property test over the whole freshness ladder.
- Attribution admits what it guessed. The vendor gives one number per
account; splitting it across projects is inference. Every ledger entry records
its method, and
SUM(pct_delta)always equals the observed delta exactly — we may be wrong about who spent it, never about how much. - A rollover is detected, never assumed. A bare utilization drop with an unchanged reset instant is a bad reading, not a fresh window — treating it as one discards a week of attribution and opens every gate on the account.
These are stated as executable rules in docs/05-invariants.md
and tested in test/.
Where it came from
Overton is the quota half of Loopdeck2, extracted and rewritten. Loopdeck2 tried to be a whole control plane — workflows, GitHub, dispatch, a deck — and the ecosystem shipped better versions of all of it during 2026. What nobody shipped, across ~200 orchestrators surveyed, was allocating a share of a rolling subscription window to a project and enforcing it. Paperclip has budgets in dollars; Quotio does per-account failover; LoopX gives per-goal hints; claudexor rotates between accounts on exhaustion. None of them keeps a per-(account, window, project) ledger.
So this is the part worth having, alone, small enough to adopt without adopting anything else.
The metering findings that make it possible — the Anthropic OAuth usage endpoint
and its mandatory User-Agent, and the rate_limits block Codex writes into
its rollout JSONL — are documented in docs/02-providers.md.
Docs
| 01 — Concepts | Windows, epochs, shares, pacing, claims, the decision |
| 02 — Providers | How metering works per vendor, and how to add one |
| 03 — Policies | The chain, and writing a rule of your own |
| 04 — Integration | Recipes: Symphony, Paperclip, Actions, shell, MCP |
| 05 — Invariants | The rules that must not regress |
Status
v0.1 — working, and young. Metering, attribution, allocation, gating, claims, CLI, HTTP and MCP all run against real accounts. 51 tests.
Not yet: remote workers, more providers than the three here, or any UI beyond a terminal table. Issues and PRs welcome — especially new providers.
License
MIT © Ignacio Freiberg
Recommended Servers
playwright-mcp
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with web pages through structured accessibility snapshots without requiring vision models or screenshots.
Magic Component Platform (MCP)
An AI-powered tool that generates modern UI components from natural language descriptions, integrating with popular IDEs to streamline UI development workflow.
Audiense Insights MCP Server
Enables interaction with Audiense Insights accounts via the Model Context Protocol, facilitating the extraction and analysis of marketing insights and audience data including demographics, behavior, and influencer engagement.
VeyraX MCP
Single MCP tool to connect all your favorite tools: Gmail, Calendar and 40 more.
graphlit-mcp-server
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server enables integration between MCP clients and the Graphlit service. Ingest anything from Slack to Gmail to podcast feeds, in addition to web crawling, into a Graphlit project - and then retrieve relevant contents from the MCP client.
Kagi MCP Server
An MCP server that integrates Kagi search capabilities with Claude AI, enabling Claude to perform real-time web searches when answering questions that require up-to-date information.
Neon Database
MCP server for interacting with Neon Management API and databases
E2B
Using MCP to run code via e2b.
Exa Search
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server lets AI assistants like Claude use the Exa AI Search API for web searches. This setup allows AI models to get real-time web information in a safe and controlled way.
Qdrant Server
This repository is an example of how to create a MCP server for Qdrant, a vector search engine.