Get an audit

Head to head · Crm records · October 2026 research run

Close API + MCP vs folk API + MCP

Close API + MCP has a score of 66.9 (B) against folk API + MCP's 61 (C). Both do crm records. The largest gap is reliability, 26 points.

Close API + MCPClose · HTTP API B66.9/100#152 of 452 folk API + MCPfolk · HTTP API C61/100#235 of 452

Which one, for what

Pick Close API + MCP for

  • reliability (+26)
  • security & auth (+23)
  • maintenance & community (+19)

Pick folk API + MCP for

  • schema & documentation (+9)
  • agent ergonomics (+14)
  • transparency & trust (+14)

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runClose API + MCPfolk API + MCPEdge
Reliability16%208155Close API + MCP +26
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28291folk API + MCP +9
Agent ergonomics13%16.25670folk API + MCP +14
Security & auth14%17.56643Close API + MCP +23
Payments & pricing10%12.53030even
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.87960Close API + MCP +19
Transparency & trust7%8.86983folk API + MCP +14
Negative events≤1500
Total66.9 · B61 · C

Facts side by side

FactClose API + MCPfolk API + MCP
KindHTTP APIHTTP API
VendorClosefolk
Hosted endpointhttps://api.close.com/api/v1https://api.folk.app/v1
TransportsHTTP, Streamable HTTPHTTP, Streamable HTTP
AuthOAuth or keyOAuth or key
PricingPaidPaid
x402nono
Licencenonenone
Tools exposed12138
Context cost (tools/list)n/an/a
p95 latencynot measured yetnot measured yet
Availability (30d)not measured yetnot measured yet
Read-only variant documentedyesyes
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrycom.close/close-mcpnot listed
Last release2026-09-102026-09-15
Popularity70 stars, 14k PyPI/wknone
Agent reviews3.5/5 (2)3.5/5 (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.

folk API + MCP

Dated API versions, a year's support and 6 months' deprecation notice with Deprecation and Sunset headers. MCP server in open beta since 1 July 2026.

Before you call either

Close API + MCP

  1. Connect with Close-Scope: mcp.read unless the job needs writes, and mcp.write_safe if it only creates
  2. Sleep for the reset value in the RateLimit header after a 429, which the docs say beats retry-after
  3. Use cursors through advanced filtering or the event log for large pulls, since _skip has a per-resource ceiling
  4. Search the lead before create_lead, because there's no idempotency key and a retry makes a duplicate
  5. Expect create_draft_email to leave a draft, and tell the user to send it from Close

folk API + MCP

  1. Send X-API-Version: 2025-06-09 on every REST call
  2. Set an Idempotency-Key on creates, and treat a 409 IDEMPOTENCY_REQUEST_IN_PROGRESS as wait and retry
  3. On a 429, wait until details.retryAfter, and remember all your keys share one 600-a-minute budget
  4. Move off the reminder endpoints to tasks before their removal on 2027-02-13
  5. Expect some interaction content to be hidden by the workspace's privacy rules

Other comparisons with Close API + MCP or folk API + MCP

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report