Statistics of the World
Server Details
490+ economic & demographic indicators for 218 countries from IMF, World Bank, UN, FRED.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- dregon03/statisticsoftheworld
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: country comparison, indicator listing, country list, country overview, historical data, ranking, and indicator search. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_countries, get_available_indicators), using imperative verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 7 tools covering overview, comparison, historical data, rankings, and indicator management, the set is well-scoped for a statistics server. Not too few or too many.
The tools cover key tasks: retrieving lists, detailed overviews, comparisons, historical data, rankings, and indicator lookup. No obvious gaps for the read-only statistical domain.
Available Tools
7 toolscompare_countriesAInspect
Compare 2-10 countries on selected indicators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_ids | Yes | List of country codes (max 10) | |
| indicator_ids | No | Indicator IDs to compare (default: GDP, population, life expectancy, etc.) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic functionality. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data sources, update frequency, limitations (e.g., on indicator selection), or what happens if invalid country codes are provided.
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 a single sentence of 7 words with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently without any filler.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., table, JSON). It also does not mention how to get indicator IDs, though sibling get_available_indicators exists. It is minimally complete for a simple comparison task.
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%, and the description adds meaningful constraints: 'max 10' for country_ids and default indicators (GDP, population, etc.) for indicator_ids. This goes beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 explicitly states the action 'compare' and the resource 'countries on selected indicators'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_country_overview (single country) and get_indicator_ranking (ranking).
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 implies usage for cross-country comparison but does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like get_country_overview for a single country or get_historical_data for trends. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_available_indicatorsBInspect
List all available indicators grouped by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional: filter by category name |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a read-like operation. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or the structure of the response beyond grouping. The minimal statement is insufficient for full transparency.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence of 6 words conveys the core action and grouping behavior. No unnecessary words or filler.
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 simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description adequately states the purpose but lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of grouped data, pagination, limits). It meets minimum viability but could be more informative.
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% as the only parameter 'category' has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'available indicators' with a clear distinguishing behavior 'grouped by category'. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like search_indicators (which likely involves queries) and get_indicator_ranking (which focuses on rankings).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_indicators or get_indicator_ranking. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_country_listAInspect
List all 218 countries with metadata (region, income level, capital).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Optional: filter by region |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions the specific count (218) and metadata fields, but lacks information on data freshness, pagination, or any limitations.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the key action and scope.
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?
Adequately explains the purpose and output for a simple list tool with one optional filter. Could clarify region filter behavior (exact vs partial), but overall sufficient.
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% for the single parameter, but the description adds value by specifying the output metadata (region, income level, capital), which is not part of 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 it lists all 218 countries with metadata, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_country_overview which likely focuses on a single country.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings. Usage is implied: use for a comprehensive list with basic metadata, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_country_overviewAInspect
Get all key statistics and AI narrative for a country. Returns GDP, population, life expectancy, inflation, unemployment, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_id | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code (e.g., USA, CAN, GBR, CHN, JPN, DEU) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication needs, or error handling (e.g., invalid country codes). This is insufficient for a tool with no 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, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and devoid of fluff. Every phrase earns its place: the first states action, the second clarifies outputs.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no outputs schema, the description lists several key outputs but omits details like the full return structure, the meaning of 'AI narrative', and error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of 'country_id' (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code). The description adds no additional parameter meaning; it only expands on outputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('country overview'), and lists key statistics like GDP, population, life expectancy, etc., which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare_countries' or 'get_historical_data'.
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 implies usage for obtaining a single country's overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions or alternatives. Context suggests it's for snapshots, but no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_historical_dataAInspect
Get historical time series (20+ years) for a country and indicator pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_id | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code | |
| indicator_id | Yes | Indicator ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the time range (20+ years) but fails to mention if the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or error handling. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and well-placed.
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?
The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, this is minimally complete.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating that it uses a country and indicator. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical time series'), includes a time range ('20+ years'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_country_overview' or 'get_indicator_ranking' which target different data types.
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 only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as 'compare_countries' or 'get_country_list'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_indicator_rankingAInspect
Rank countries by any indicator. Supports top N, bottom N. Use for "highest GDP", "lowest unemployment", "most populated" queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (default 10) | |
| order | No | "desc" for highest first, "asc" for lowest first | |
| indicator_id | Yes | Indicator ID (e.g., IMF.NGDPD for GDP, SP.POP.TOTL for population, IMF.PCPIPCH for inflation) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions ranking but doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error handling for invalid indicator IDs.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates core functionality.
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?
No output schema, so description should ideally mention return value format (e.g., list of countries with values). It's functional but leaves agent uncertain about output structure.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds example indicator IDs (e.g., IMF.NGDPD) which provides extra context, but schema already defines parameter meanings.
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 ranks countries by any indicator and supports top N/bottom N. It provides concrete query examples like 'highest GDP' and distinguishes from sibling tools that compare or list indicators.
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 recommends use for 'highest GDP', 'lowest unemployment' type queries. While it doesn't contrast with siblings like compare_countries, the examples give clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_indicatorsBInspect
Search for indicators by keyword. Use when you need to find the right indicator ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term (e.g., "gdp", "population", "education", "co2") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, or potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The description carries the full burden but only states the basic operation.
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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description does not explain the output format (e.g., list of indicator IDs or full records). Given the absence of an output schema and the sibling 'get_available_indicators', more context is needed to fully guide the agent.
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 well-described parameter 'query' with examples. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 for indicators by keyword, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('indicators'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_available_indicators', which likely lists all indicators.
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 a clear usage context ('Use when you need to find the right indicator ID') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like 'get_available_indicators'.
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!