agents benchmark
MCP-Mark evaluates LLMs on their ability to use Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools effectively across diverse MCP server scenarios.
Updated Sep 5, 2026
Higher score ranks better on this benchmark.
Rank | Model | Score | Percentile | Participants | Evidence | Evaluated |
|---|
| Rank01 | ModelMA | Score81.10% | Percentile100.00% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank02 | ModelAC | Score60.80% | Percentile85.71% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank03 | ModelAC | Score58.70% | Percentile71.43% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank04 | ModelMA | Score55.90% | Percentile57.14% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank05 | ModelAC | Score48.20% | Percentile42.86% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank06 | ModelAC | Score46.10% | Percentile28.57% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank07 | ModelDE | Score38.00% | Percentile14.29% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank08 | ModelAC | Score37.00% | Percentile0.00% | Participants8 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
The leading models and scores on this benchmark.
A closer view of the leading scores on this benchmark.
The first five results on this benchmark, with official price and output speed added where the model identity can be matched.
What MCP-Mark measures and how its scores work.
MCP-Mark is a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool use.
It measures tool discovery, selection, invocation, and result interpretation, reported as a Score ratio.
Scores are shown in ratio. This benchmark is not independently verified and has an evidence level of B.
LLM Stats. Benchmark scores retain their original unit. Overall score eligibility is shown separately.
Common questions about MCP-Mark.
Kimi K2.7 Code is currently ranked first with 81.10%.
The current leaders are Kimi K2.7 Code (81.10%), Qwen3.7 Max (60.80%), and Qwen3.7-Plus (58.70%).
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the lowest matched official input price at $0.25 input / $1.5 output per 1M tokens.
The fastest matched records are DeepSeek-V3.2 (97.00 tok/s via DeepInfra) and Kimi K2.6 (1.24 tok/s via Moonshot AI).
No. This benchmark measures one defined capability or task. The overall LLMBoard score uses a separate aggregation across eligible benchmark evidence.
It measures tool discovery, selection, invocation, and result interpretation, reported as a Score ratio.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
8 model results are currently shown.
No. This benchmark is shown for reference but does not contribute to the overall score.
Ranking basisThis mcp-mark AI model leaderboard uses descending score in the benchmark original unit. The leaderboard ranking keeps matched price and speed data separate from benchmark evidence.
Selection summary
Kimi K2.7 Code currently leads MCP-Mark with 81.10%. It is the top model on this specific benchmark, while the best LLM for the broader task should also be checked against other benchmarks, price, and runtime.
Use this leaderboard with the supporting benchmark results and coverage details above. A leaderboard position summarizes the selected ranking signal; it does not replace workload-specific testing.