| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $25/mo |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 15 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Wraps arbitrary MCP server tools with metering middleware that intercepts tool invocations without modifying the underlying tool logic. Uses a decorator/proxy pattern to inject usage tracking at the MCP protocol boundary, capturing invocation metadata (tool name, input size, execution time, output tokens) before passing through to the original tool handler. Maintains full MCP protocol compatibility while adding observability hooks for billing calculations.
Unique: Implements MCP-native metering via protocol-level wrapping rather than application-level logging, allowing transparent instrumentation of any MCP tool without code changes to the tool itself. Uses MCP's built-in request/response cycle to capture metrics at the protocol boundary.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom billing logic into each tool and more MCP-native than generic HTTP request logging, since it understands MCP tool schemas and can extract semantic usage signals (tool name, parameter types) directly from protocol messages.
Automatically extracts structured usage metrics from each MCP tool invocation, including execution duration, input/output token counts (if applicable), tool name, and invocation timestamp. Aggregates metrics across multiple invocations into usage events that can be exported for billing. Supports custom metric extractors for tool-specific billing dimensions (e.g., API calls made by a tool, database queries executed).
Unique: Extracts metrics at the MCP protocol level, allowing it to understand tool semantics (tool name, schema) and capture usage signals that generic HTTP/RPC logging cannot. Supports pluggable metric extractors for domain-specific billing dimensions without modifying core metering logic.
vs alternatives: More semantic than generic request logging (which only sees bytes/latency) because it understands MCP tool schemas and can extract tool-specific billing signals; more flexible than hardcoded billing logic because extractors are composable and reusable.
Converts metered usage data into billing-ready events that can be exported to external billing systems (Stripe, custom databases, data warehouses). Generates structured billing events with tool usage, metrics, timestamps, and optional customer/tenant identifiers. Supports batch export and streaming event emission for real-time billing pipelines. Events are formatted as JSON and can be written to files, HTTP endpoints, or message queues.
Unique: Generates billing events directly from MCP protocol-level metrics, avoiding the need to instrument billing logic in individual tools or applications. Events are MCP-aware (include tool schema info, protocol metadata) and can be exported to multiple destinations in parallel.
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic usage logging because it understands MCP tool semantics and can generate billing events with tool-specific context; more flexible than hardcoded billing because export destinations and event schemas are configurable.
Provides mechanisms to tag and isolate usage metrics by tenant, customer, or API key, enabling accurate cost attribution in multi-tenant MCP deployments. Supports tenant context propagation through MCP request metadata or custom headers, ensuring each tool invocation is attributed to the correct billing entity. Enables per-tenant usage reports and cost breakdowns without cross-contamination of metrics.
Unique: Implements tenant isolation at the MCP middleware layer, allowing usage to be tagged and segregated without modifying individual tools or requiring tenant-aware tool implementations. Supports multiple tenant context sources (headers, metadata, custom fields) for flexibility in different deployment architectures.
vs alternatives: Simpler than implementing tenant isolation in each tool because it's centralized in the metering middleware; more flexible than hardcoded tenant detection because context sources are pluggable and configurable.
Provides a plugin interface for defining custom metric extractors that can capture tool-specific billing dimensions beyond standard execution time and token counts. Extractors are functions that receive the tool invocation request/response and can compute arbitrary metrics (e.g., number of database queries, external API calls, data volume processed). Extracted metrics are included in billing events and usage reports, enabling fine-grained cost attribution based on tool behavior.
Unique: Provides a composable plugin interface for metric extraction that runs at the MCP protocol boundary, allowing extractors to access both request and response data without modifying tool implementations. Extractors are decoupled from metering core, enabling independent development and reuse across tools.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded billing logic because extractors are pluggable and reusable; more semantic than generic logging because extractors understand tool-specific behavior and can compute domain-specific metrics.
Enforces usage quotas and rate limits based on metered tool invocations, preventing over-consumption and enabling fair-use policies. Supports per-tenant quotas (e.g., max 1000 tool calls per month), per-tool rate limits (e.g., max 10 calls/second), and custom quota rules. Blocks or throttles tool invocations when quotas are exceeded, returning quota-exceeded errors to the caller. Quotas can be reset on configurable schedules (daily, monthly, etc.).
Unique: Implements quota enforcement at the MCP middleware layer, allowing quotas to be applied uniformly across all tools without modifying individual tool implementations. Supports multiple enforcement modes (blocking, throttling) and custom quota rules for flexible policy implementation.
vs alternatives: More integrated than external rate limiting (e.g., API gateway) because it understands MCP tool semantics and can enforce tool-specific quotas; more flexible than hardcoded limits because quotas are configurable and can be adjusted per tenant.
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 @auvh/climeter-mcp at 21/100. @auvh/climeter-mcp 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