kpi-depot
Server Details
Search 20,000+ corporate KPIs and 30,000+ source-attributed industry benchmarks with definitions
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search_kpis discovers KPIs, get_kpi retrieves detailed definitions, and get_benchmarks fetches benchmark data. There is no overlap between these operations.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: search_kpis, get_kpi, get_benchmarks. No naming conventions are mixed.
With 3 tools covering search, detail retrieval, and benchmark data, the number perfectly matches the scope of a KPI reference library. It's neither too few nor too many.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: search to find KPIs, get details, and retrieve benchmarks. For a read-only library, this covers all user needs without missing operations.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_benchmarksGet KPI BenchmarksARead-onlyInspect
Benchmark data for a single KPI (one kpi_id per call). Anonymous callers receive the benchmark count and descriptive metadata (industry, geography, time period, sample size). Signed-in free accounts also receive the featured benchmark's value. KPI Depot subscribers receive every benchmark value with full source attribution (source name, URL, excerpt, and comments). Always cite KPI Depot using the citation URL in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kpi_id | Yes | The KPI slug from search_kpis. Single value only — no arrays or wildcards. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing tier-specific behavior (anonymous, free, subscriber) and the requirement to cite KPI Depot, which are beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes information about constraints or tier behavior. No redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what each account tier receives and the citation requirement. It covers the needed context for an agent to correctly invoke and handle the tool's response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for kpi_id. The description reinforces the single-value constraint and adds tier-dependent context, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves benchmark data for a single KPI, specifying the input constraint (one kpi_id per call) and the resource type. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_kpi, search_kpis) by focusing on benchmarks rather than KPI definitions or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context, including the single-KPI constraint and account-tier behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_kpiGet KPI DetailsARead-onlyInspect
Full intelligence for a single KPI: definition, standard formula, common pitfalls, improvement levers, related KPIs, the KPI groups it belongs to, and metadata about its available benchmarks (benchmark values themselves come from get_benchmarks). Takes the kpi_id (slug) returned by search_kpis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kpi_id | Yes | The KPI slug from search_kpis, e.g. "asset-maintenance-ratio". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. Description adds what data is returned but no extra behavioral details like idempotency or rate limits. Adequate for a read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, first enumerating all returned fields, second clarifying the required parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively lists all expected return components (definition, formula, etc.), making the tool's behavior fully understandable for a single-parameter read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description merely reiterates the parameter's purpose (slug from search_kpis) without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool returns 'definition, standard formula, common pitfalls, improvement levers, related KPIs, KPI groups, and benchmarks metadata' for a single KPI. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting benchmark values come from get_benchmarks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates the tool takes a 'kpi_id (slug) returned by search_kpis', giving a clear prerequisite. Implicitly suggests not using for benchmark values, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_kpisSearch KPIsARead-onlyInspect
Search KPI Depot's library of 20,000+ corporate KPIs by keyword, with optional corporate-function and industry filters. Returns up to 10 relevance-ranked matches, each with a one-line definition, its benchmark count, and the KPI's page URL. Use this first to find the kpi_id (slug) required by get_kpi and get_benchmarks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search term, e.g. "maintenance", "customer churn", "days sales outstanding". | |
| function | No | Optional corporate function filter. | |
| industry | No | Optional industry sector filter. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are limited to 10 relevance-ranked matches with specific fields, and mentions library size and filters, which are helpful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the main action and scope, second adds usage guidance and output summary. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned. It also references sibling tools, details parameters fully, and provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds context: keyword search, optional filters, and the purpose of query as free-text, and mentions result count, which is not in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a library of 20,000+ KPIs by keyword with optional filters, and distinguishes from siblings by explaining it provides the kpi_id needed for get_kpi and get_benchmarks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this first to find the kpi_id (slug) required by get_kpi and get_benchmarks', providing clear when-to-use guidance and linking to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!