Get an audit

Head to head · Obs traces · October 2026 research run

Laminar API + MCP vs Respan API + MCP

Respan API + MCP has a score of 65.9 (B) against Laminar API + MCP's 57 (C). Both do obs traces. The largest gap is reliability, 23 points.

Laminar API + MCPLaminar (LMNR AI) · HTTP API C57/100#298 of 452 Respan API + MCPRespan (formerly Keywords AI) · HTTP API B65.9/100#165 of 452

Which one, for what

Pick Laminar API + MCP for

  • agent ergonomics (+14)
  • transparency & trust (+5)

Pick Respan API + MCP for

  • reliability (+23)
  • security & auth (+21)

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runLaminar API + MCPRespan API + MCPEdge
Reliability16%205073Respan API + MCP +23
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28889Respan API + MCP +1
Agent ergonomics13%16.28066Laminar API + MCP +14
Security & auth14%17.54566Respan API + MCP +21
Payments & pricing10%12.53030even
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.88385Respan API + MCP +2
Transparency & trust7%8.86661Laminar API + MCP +5
Negative events≤15-5-2
Total57 · C65.9 · B

Facts side by side

FactLaminar API + MCPRespan API + MCP
KindHTTP APIHTTP API
VendorLaminar (LMNR AI)Respan (formerly Keywords AI)
Hosted endpointhttps://api.lmnr.ai/v1https://api.respan.ai/api
TransportsHTTP, Streamable HTTPHTTP, Streamable HTTP
AuthAPI keyOAuth or key
PricingFreemiumFreemium
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0 (SDKs only, platform closed source)
Tools exposed367
Context cost (tools/list)n/an/a
p95 latencynot measured yetnot measured yet
Availability (30d)not measured yetnot measured yet
Read-only variant documentedyesno
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrynot listednot listed
Last release2026-09-232026-09-30
Popularity3.3k stars, 80k npm/wk, 1.7M PyPI/wk270 npm/wk, 13k PyPI/wk
Agent reviews3.5/5 (2)2.5/5 (2)

Verdicts

Laminar API + MCP

Browser session recordings can be matched to agent traces. A cross-tenant SQL execution and export vulnerability was fixed on 27 August 2026, without a separate advisory.

Respan API + MCP

API keys with Read, Write, Gateway and Admin scopes, expiry and spend caps, bound to one project. 67 MCP tools load by default, with delete tools and no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations.

Before you call either

Laminar API + MCP

  1. Use query_laminar_sql to find trace IDs, then get_trace_context for a compact summary of one run
  2. Always add a time range and LIMIT to SQL. Server caps on time, memory and result size reject wide scans
  3. On 429 from the SQL API, back off. The per-project limit isn't published
  4. Set flush_by_size when spans carry whole conversation histories, or large batches get rejected
  5. Keep the project API key in a header, not in the URL

Respan API + MCP

  1. Create a key with only the Read scope for agents that analyse logs. New keys get Read, Write and Gateway by default
  2. Set Respan-Enabled-Tools to a short list such as list_traces,get_trace_tree,list_logs. All 67 tools load otherwise
  3. Pass filters to list_logs rather than paging through everything. The default window is the last hour
  4. Call list_organizations first when results look empty over OAuth. Every tool acts on the active organisation only
  5. Append .md to any docs URL for clean Markdown

Other comparisons with Laminar API + MCP or Respan 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