Use the data
280 releases, 375 evidenced claims, every one carrying the URL of the page that states it. CC BY 4.0.
Endpoints
| /api/index.json | Discovery: licence, counts, endpoint list. Stable — point a badge at it. |
|---|---|
| /api/models.json | Every release as authored, with sources and provenance. |
| /api/claims.json | 375 claims, denormalised: value, the lab page asserting it, the archived snapshot. |
| /api/companies.json | Per-lab counts, open-weights share, first and latest release. |
| /llm-releases.csv | Flat table for spreadsheets. |
| /llms.txt | What an agent should read first. |
Every payload carries its own license, attribution and
schema_version, so the terms travel with the data. A breaking shape change
bumps schema_version — pin against it.
Licence
The data is CC BY 4.0: use it, change it, sell it, as long as you credit LLM World and link back. The code is MIT. See LICENSE-DATA and NOTICE for exactly what each covers.
Release dates and metadata from LLM World
https://mayoorrnikam.github.io/llm-world/ — CC BY 4.0
What a missing field means
Nobody has traced it yet. Not zero, and not that the model lacks the
property. Capabilities are recorded only where a primary source states them, so absence
is silence rather than denial — a model with no coding capability may well
code, and this dataset simply has not evidenced it. Building a "does not support"
claim on a blank field is the one misuse that will make you wrong.
| Records | 280, of which 185 (66%) are verified — every value traced to a primary source |
|---|---|
modalities | 163 of 280 (58%) — What the model takes in and puts out |
capabilities | 185 of 280 (66%) — Only where a primary source states them |
context_window | 131 of 280 (47%) — Language models only |
parameter_count | 84 of 280 (30%) — Most proprietary labs publish none |
pricing | 44 of 280 (16%) — Needs an archived page to evidence it |
benchmarks | 15 of 280 (5%) — Most labs publish these as images |
pricing and benchmarks are thin on purpose rather than by neglect, and the reasons are
in data quality. What follows from it: this dataset
cannot rank models by performance or cost
across the whole set. It can tell you what a lab stated and where.
MCP server
A dependency-free server over the same data, for Claude Desktop, Claude Code or any
MCP client. It lives in the repository at mcp/server.mjs.
git clone https://github.com/mayoorrnikam/llm-world.git
npm run mcp
Then add it to your client's config — for Claude Desktop that is
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{ "mcpServers": { "llm-world": {
"command": "/opt/homebrew/bin/node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/llm-world/mcp/server.mjs"] } } }
Use an absolute path to node, not "node". A GUI
application on macOS inherits /usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin and never the PATH
from your shell profile, so a Node installed by nvm or a version manager is invisible to it
and the server fails to spawn with nothing useful in the log. which node in a
terminal answers about a different PATH than the one your client has.
search_models | A plain-language query. Returns matches and not_ruled_out. |
|---|---|
get_model | One record in full, every claim with its primary and archived URL. |
dataset_stats | Coverage per field, so a caller knows what the data supports. |
not_ruled_out is the part worth having. Asked for a coding model with a 1M
context window it returns the models that match — and separately lists Claude Sonnet 5
and Claude Fable 5, which have the context window and whose coding ability nobody has
evidenced. Reporting those as "no" would be false; dropping them silently is how a
research gap turns into a wrong answer.
Nothing in it ranks models. Benchmarks cover 5% of records, and a leaderboard on that basis would be the one part of this project that is not evidence.