| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $25/mo |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 15 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates the correctness and quality of tool calls made by MCP servers by submitting call results to an LLM (OpenAI, Anthropic, or other providers) with configurable scoring rubrics. The system captures tool invocations from MCP server execution, constructs evaluation prompts with context about the original request and actual output, and returns structured scores (typically 0-10 or pass/fail) based on LLM judgment of whether the tool was called appropriately and produced useful results.
Unique: Purpose-built for MCP server evaluation in GitHub Actions workflows, integrating directly with MCP protocol semantics (tool schemas, call arguments, results) rather than generic LLM evaluation — understands MCP-specific context like tool definitions and server capabilities to construct more relevant evaluation prompts
vs alternatives: More specialized than generic LLM evaluation frameworks (like Braintrust or Weights & Biases) because it natively understands MCP tool call structure and integrates directly into GitHub Actions, reducing setup friction for MCP-specific teams
Provides a GitHub Action that runs as a workflow step, automatically triggering MCP server tool evaluations on pull requests, commits, or scheduled intervals. The action orchestrates test execution, captures tool call telemetry, invokes the LLM evaluation engine, and reports results back to GitHub as check runs, PR comments, or workflow artifacts, enabling developers to see evaluation scores without leaving their GitHub interface.
Unique: Tight GitHub Actions integration with native check run reporting and PR comment support, allowing evaluation results to flow directly into GitHub's native review and merge workflows without external dashboards or manual status checking
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom CI/CD evaluation pipelines because it provides pre-built GitHub Actions scaffolding, whereas generic evaluation tools require custom workflow orchestration and status reporting
Abstracts LLM provider selection (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models, etc.) behind a unified evaluation interface, allowing users to define custom scoring rubrics as natural language prompts or structured templates. The system routes evaluation requests to the configured provider, injects the rubric into the evaluation prompt, and normalizes responses into consistent score formats regardless of which LLM backend is used.
Unique: Provider abstraction layer that normalizes evaluation across different LLM backends while preserving provider-specific capabilities, allowing users to define rubrics once and evaluate against OpenAI, Anthropic, or local models without code changes
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider evaluation tools because it decouples rubric definition from LLM choice, whereas alternatives like Anthropic's evaluation tools lock you into their provider ecosystem
Intercepts and logs MCP tool invocations with full context: tool name, input arguments, output results, execution time, and error states. Data is captured in structured JSON format with timestamps and request IDs, enabling downstream evaluation systems to access complete call history and correlate evaluations with specific invocations across distributed systems.
Unique: MCP-native telemetry capture that understands tool schemas and call semantics, logging not just raw arguments but also semantic context like which tool was called and whether it succeeded, enabling evaluation systems to make informed scoring decisions
vs alternatives: More specialized than generic application logging because it captures MCP-specific metadata (tool definitions, call arguments, results) in a format directly consumable by evaluation systems, whereas generic logging requires custom parsing
Tracks evaluation scores across multiple runs (commits, PRs, scheduled evaluations) and detects statistically significant regressions or improvements in tool call quality. The system compares current scores against historical baselines, flags scores that drop below thresholds, and generates trend reports showing score evolution over time.
Unique: Automated regression detection specifically for MCP tool evaluation scores, comparing current runs against historical baselines to identify quality degradation without manual threshold tuning or external monitoring systems
vs alternatives: More targeted than generic performance monitoring because it focuses on tool call quality metrics specific to MCP, whereas general monitoring tools require custom metric definition and alerting logic
Formats evaluation results into human-readable reports and integrates with GitHub's native reporting mechanisms: check runs (pass/fail status on commits), PR comments (inline feedback), and workflow artifacts (detailed JSON reports). The system normalizes evaluation data into GitHub-compatible formats and automatically posts results without requiring manual GitHub API calls.
Unique: Native GitHub Actions integration that automatically posts evaluation results as check runs and PR comments without requiring custom GitHub API orchestration, making results immediately visible in developers' existing GitHub workflows
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom GitHub integrations because it provides pre-built reporting templates and GitHub API abstraction, whereas generic evaluation tools require manual GitHub API integration
Allows users to define scoring thresholds, pass/fail criteria, and conditional logic for determining whether evaluations succeed or fail. Users can set minimum score requirements (e.g., 'score >= 7 to pass'), define multiple evaluation criteria with different thresholds, and configure weighted scoring if multiple tools are evaluated together.
Unique: Flexible threshold configuration that allows per-tool or per-category scoring requirements, enabling teams to enforce different quality standards for different tool types without separate evaluation pipelines
vs alternatives: More granular than fixed pass/fail systems because it supports per-tool thresholds and weighted scoring, whereas simpler tools use one-size-fits-all thresholds
Processes multiple tool calls in a single evaluation run, scoring each call individually and then aggregating results into summary metrics (average score, pass rate, failure breakdown). The system batches LLM API calls for efficiency, correlates individual scores with specific tools, and generates aggregate reports showing overall tool quality across the batch.
Unique: Batch evaluation with per-tool aggregation that groups results by tool type, enabling teams to see not just overall pass rates but also which specific tools are underperforming without separate evaluation runs per tool
vs alternatives: More efficient than evaluating tool calls individually because it batches LLM API calls and aggregates results in one pass, whereas naive approaches evaluate each call separately with redundant API overhead
Automatically inspects tabular data sources (Google Sheets, Airtable, Excel, CSV, SQL databases) to extract column names, infer field types (text, number, date, checkbox, etc.), and create bidirectional data bindings between UI components and source columns. Uses declarative component-to-column mappings that persist schema changes in real-time, enabling components to automatically reflect upstream data structure modifications without manual rebinding.
Unique: Glide's approach combines automatic schema introspection with declarative component binding, eliminating manual field mapping that competitors like Airtable require. The bidirectional sync model means changes to source column structure automatically propagate to UI components without developer intervention, reducing maintenance overhead for non-technical users.
vs alternatives: Faster to initial app than Airtable (which requires manual field configuration) and more flexible than rigid form builders because it adapts to evolving data structures automatically.
Provides 40+ pre-built, data-aware UI components (forms, tables, calendars, charts, buttons, text inputs, dropdowns, file uploads, maps, etc.) that automatically render responsively across mobile and desktop viewports. Components use a declarative binding syntax to connect to spreadsheet columns, with built-in support for computed fields, conditional visibility, and user-specific data filtering. Layout engine uses CSS Grid/Flexbox under the hood to adapt component sizing and positioning based on screen size without requiring manual breakpoint configuration.
Unique: Glide's component library is tightly integrated with data binding — components are not generic UI elements but data-aware objects that automatically sync with spreadsheet columns. This eliminates the disconnect between UI and data that exists in traditional form builders, where developers must manually wire component values to data sources.
vs alternatives: Faster to build than Bubble (which requires manual component-to-data wiring) and more mobile-optimized than Airtable's grid-centric interface, which prioritizes desktop spreadsheet metaphors over mobile-first design.
Glide scores higher at 70/100 vs mcp-evals at 31/100. mcp-evals leads on ecosystem, while Glide is stronger on adoption and quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables multiple team members to edit apps simultaneously with role-based access control. Supports predefined roles (Owner, Editor, Viewer) with different permission levels: Owners can manage team members and publish apps, Editors can modify app design and data, Viewers can only view published apps. Team member limits vary by plan (2 free, 10 business, custom enterprise). Real-time collaboration on app design is not mentioned, suggesting changes may not be synchronized in real-time between editors.
Unique: Glide's team collaboration is built into the platform, meaning team members don't need separate accounts or complex permission configuration — they're invited via email and assigned roles directly in the app. This is more seamless than tools requiring external identity management.
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airtable (which requires separate workspace management) and simpler than GitHub-based collaboration (which requires version control knowledge), though less sophisticated than enterprise platforms with audit logging and approval workflows.
Provides pre-built app templates for common use cases (inventory management, CRM, project management, expense tracking, etc.) that users can clone and customize. Templates include sample data, pre-configured components, and example workflows, reducing time-to-first-app from hours to minutes. Templates are fully editable, allowing users to modify data sources, components, and workflows to match their specific needs. Template library is curated by Glide and updated regularly with new templates.
Unique: Glide's templates are fully functional apps with sample data and workflows, not just empty scaffolds. This allows users to immediately see how components work together and understand app structure before customizing, reducing the learning curve significantly.
vs alternatives: More complete than Airtable's templates (which are mostly empty bases) and more accessible than building from scratch, though less flexible than code-based frameworks where templates can be parameterized and generated programmatically.
Allows workflows to be triggered on a schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, or custom intervals) without manual intervention. Scheduled workflows execute at specified times and can perform batch operations (process pending records, send daily reports, sync data, etc.). Execution time is in UTC, and the exact scheduling mechanism (cron, quartz, custom) is undocumented. Failed scheduled tasks may or may not retry automatically (retry logic undocumented).
Unique: Glide's scheduled workflows are integrated with the workflow engine, meaning scheduled tasks can execute the same complex logic as event-triggered workflows (conditional logic, multi-step actions, API calls). This is more powerful than simple scheduled email tools because scheduled tasks can perform data transformations and cross-system synchronization.
vs alternatives: More integrated than Zapier's schedule trigger (which is limited to simple actions) and more accessible than cron jobs (which require server access and scripting knowledge), though less transparent about execution guarantees and failure handling than enterprise job schedulers.
Offers Glide Tables, a proprietary managed database alternative to external spreadsheets or databases, with automatic scaling and optimization for Glide apps. Glide Tables are stored in Glide's infrastructure and optimized for the data binding and query patterns used by Glide apps. Scaling limits are plan-dependent (25k-100k rows), with separate 'Big Tables' tier for larger datasets (exact scaling limits undocumented). Automatic backups and disaster recovery are mentioned but details are undocumented.
Unique: Glide Tables are optimized specifically for Glide's data binding and query patterns, meaning they're tightly integrated with the app builder and don't require separate database administration. This is more seamless than connecting external databases (which require schema design and optimization knowledge) but less flexible because data is locked into Glide's proprietary format.
vs alternatives: More managed than self-hosted databases (no administration required) and more integrated than external databases (no separate configuration), though less portable than standard databases because data cannot be easily exported or migrated.
Provides basic chart components (bar, line, pie, area charts) that visualize data from connected sources. Charts are configured visually by selecting data columns for axes, values, and grouping. Charts are responsive and adapt to mobile/tablet/desktop. Real-time updates are supported; charts refresh when underlying data changes. No custom chart types or advanced visualization options (3D, animations, etc.) are available.
Unique: Provides basic chart components with automatic real-time updates and responsive design, suitable for simple dashboards — most visual builders (Bubble, FlutterFlow) require chart plugins or custom code
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airtable's chart view because real-time updates are automatic; weaker than BI tools (Tableau, Looker) because no drill-down, filtering, or advanced visualization options
Allows users to query data using natural language (e.g., 'Show me all orders from last month with revenue > $5k') which is converted to structured database queries without SQL knowledge. Also includes AI-powered data extraction from unstructured text (emails, documents, images) to populate spreadsheet columns. Implementation details (LLM model, context window, fine-tuning approach) are undocumented, but the feature appears to use prompt-based query generation with fallback to manual query building if AI fails.
Unique: Glide's natural language query feature bridges the gap between spreadsheet users (who think in English) and database queries (which require SQL). Rather than teaching users SQL, it translates natural language to structured queries, lowering the barrier to data exploration. The data extraction capability extends this to unstructured sources, automating data entry from emails and documents.
vs alternatives: More accessible than Airtable's formula language or traditional SQL, and more integrated than bolt-on AI query tools because it's built directly into the data layer rather than as a separate search interface.
+7 more capabilities