Can Claude / ChatGPT / Cursor use KI BMS directly?

Yes, via the MCP server. It's a stdio JSON-RPC server that wires into Claude Desktop, Cursor, or any MCP-aware client in five lines of config. The list of tools matches your data model 1:1 - whatever a CRUD type exposes in the UI is exposed identically to the agent.

Do agent calls share the same auth + access controls?

Yes. The MCP server authenticates with the same JWT or PAT a human session uses. Sharing rules, org membership, rate limits, suspicion bans - all of it applies. There's no "agent backdoor" that bypasses the access matrix.

Is there an audit trail for agent actions?

Yes. Every mutation goes through the same audit-log path as a UI click. The transport (UI / API / CLI / MCP) is recorded as channel metadata so you can filter "what did the agent do this hour" from your account history.

Can I rate-limit an agent separately from a human?

Per-token rate limits apply, so you can issue an agent its own PAT and cap it independently. The shared user-level bucket also caps total throughput, so a runaway loop can't drain your whole account. The CLI's auto-update channel marker means you can also see in audit which version is calling.

Does the MCP / API surface cost extra?

No. Same plan, same surface. We don't paywall the agent - it's the same product, the same schema, the same access gates. If a plan can do X in the UI, it can do X via MCP.

KI BMS

Pricing

Compare

KI BMS: the agent-friendly alternative to Lever (Employ)

Same product, same surface for humans and AI agents. MCP server + CLI + drop-in clients in 15 languages.

Agentic alternative

ATS

Comparison

Premium

Julia YukovichCo-Founder + CEO

·April 14, 2026·

2 min read

KI BMS ships an MCP server you can wire into Claude Desktop or any MCP client in five lines. The same auth + access gates apply, the same audit log records every action, the same rate limits apply. Lever (Employ) doesn't currently expose this surface - that's the gap.

At a glance

Lever is right when you're a 50-500-person tech company with an active sourcing function and need an integrated ATS + CRM for talent-relationship management. KI BMS is right when you're 8-100 employees, primarily recruiting in DACH, and want KI pre-sort from day 1 without an add-on. Lever is premium-tier (4-5-figure yearly), KI BMS is transparent mid-tier pricing. Similar pipeline depth, different market segments.

Agent surface

What 'agent-friendly' actually means in practice

KI BMS ships an MCP server, a CLI, and drop-in clients in 15 languages. They're auto-generated from the same schema your UI uses; the auth, the access gates, the rate limits, the audit log all apply identically whether you're clicking buttons or calling the API. Lever (Employ) doesn't currently expose this surface, which is the gap a serious agent integration trips over - the agent ends up scraping the UI through a browser, which is fragile, slow, and silently bypasses everything below.

KI BMS vs Lever (Employ): agent-readiness comparison

	Ours KI BMS	Theirs Lever (Employ)
Hosted in Germany
Careers page included
Talent CRM	Talent pool	Full CRM (nurture)
Multi-job-board posting
KI fit-score built in		Lever Helix add-on
Multi-voice scorecards
Free tier
Starting price	€0 / €1 / €10 / month	Quote (4-5-figure per year)
Contract model	Monthly	Annual, often multi-year
Setup time	Hours	Weeks (with implementation)
Language	DE + EN	EN-first