Head to head · Crm records · October 2026 research run
Close API + MCP vs Copper API
Close API + MCP has a score of 66.9 (B) against Copper API's 46.9 (D). Both do crm records. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 58 points.
Which one, for what
Pick Close API + MCP for
- schema & documentation (+34)
- agent ergonomics (+16)
- security & auth (+39)
- maintenance & community (+58)
Pick Copper API for
- transparency & trust (+5)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Close API + MCP | Copper API | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 81 | 79 | Close API + MCP +2 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 82 | 48 | Close API + MCP +34 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 56 | 40 | Close API + MCP +16 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 66 | 27 | Close API + MCP +39 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 30 | 30 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 79 | 21 | Close API + MCP +58 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 69 | 74 | Copper API +5 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 66.9 · B | 46.9 · D |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Close API + MCP | Copper API |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Close | Copper |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.close.com/api/v1 | https://api.copper.com/developer_api/v1 |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | none |
| Tools exposed | 121 | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | yes | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| MCP registry | com.close/close-mcp | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-10 | 2026-07-02 |
| Popularity | 70 stars, 14k PyPI/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | 1.5/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Close API + MCP
Three MCP scopes chosen per connection, read (71 tools), safe write (87) and destructive (121). 121 MCP tools, and even the read scope loads 71.
Copper API
Published limits of 180 requests a minute and 3 a second for bulk endpoints. No official MCP server, OpenAPI spec or llms.txt.
Before you call either
Close API + MCP
- Connect with
Close-Scope: mcp.readunless the job needs writes, andmcp.write_safeif it only creates - Sleep for the
resetvalue in theRateLimitheader after a 429, which the docs say beatsretry-after - Use cursors through advanced filtering or the event log for large pulls, since
_skiphas a per-resource ceiling - Search the lead before
create_lead, because there's no idempotency key and a retry makes a duplicate - Expect
create_draft_emailto leave a draft, and tell the user to send it from Close
Copper API
- Send
X-PW-AccessToken,X-PW-Application: developer_apiandX-PW-UserEmailon every call, or it fails - Set
page_sizeto 200 and stop when a page comes back short, sinceX-PW-TOTALis only an upper bound - Back off on 429 on your own clock, since no Retry-After is documented
- Narrow searches that would pass 100,000 records, which is where results stop
- Read connect fields before you update a record, because an update that omits them can delete connections
Other comparisons with Close API + MCP or Copper API
- Attio API + MCP vs Close API + MCP
- Attio API + MCP vs Copper API
- Close API + MCP vs folk API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Freshsales API
- Close API + MCP vs HubSpot API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Streak API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Twenty API + MCP
- Copper API vs folk API + MCP
- Copper API vs Freshsales API
- Copper API vs HubSpot API + MCP
- Copper API vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Copper API vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Copper API vs Streak API + MCP
- Copper API vs Twenty API + MCP
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/close.json·/api/v1/tools/copper.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/close-vs-copper.md