CoreDash MCP Serverofficial
A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceReal User Monitoring for Core Web Vitals. Query LCP, INP, and CLS field data from real visitors.
Last updated
MIT
State of Web Vitals
Server Details
Core Web Vitals metrics by CMS, CDN, and framework — free remote MCP, no auth.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- corewebvitals/state-of-cwv-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- State of Web Vitals MCP
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_histogram returns histogram buckets for one metric, get_metrics returns aggregate stats with optional grouping, and list_options provides metadata. No confusion possible.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_histogram, get_metrics, list_options) using snake_case, which is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for a web vitals query API. Each tool earns its place: data retrieval, histogram analysis, and options discovery. No unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all necessary operations for the domain: aggregate metrics, detailed distribution (histogram), and parameter discovery. No obvious gaps like missing time-series or comparison features, but the stated purpose is sufficiently served.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_histogramARead-onlyInspect
What is the shape of one metric? Returns histogram buckets (count + share) plus summary stats.
Metric: one of lcp, inp, cls, fcp, ttfb (field CWV), or a scalar technique path when available.
Filter: same as get_metrics (device, cms, framework, cdn, provider). No group_by — call get_metrics with group_by to compare segments, then get_histogram per segment if needed.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | AND filters. Omit for all sites in the dataset. Keys: device (all|phone|desktop), cms, framework, cdn, provider (key), provider_category (e.g. analytics — use with provider or alone is not enough; prefer group_by for rankings). | |
| metric | Yes | lcp | inp | cls | fcp | ttfb, or a contract scalar path. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns histogram buckets and summary stats, which is consistent and provides incremental context about output behavior. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core question. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, metric options, and usage guidelines. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to use it. A brief mention of the exact structure of histogram buckets or summary stats would improve completeness, but current level is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that metric includes 'field CWV' or a 'scalar technique path when available,' and that filter keys are the same as get_metrics. This reinforces and slightly expands on schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses 'What is the shape of one metric?' to clearly state the unique purpose of the tool. It specifies exactly what is returned (histogram buckets plus summary stats) and lists the allowed metrics and filter options, differentiating it from sibling tool get_metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when not to use group_by and directs the agent to call get_metrics with group_by for comparing segments, then use get_histogram per segment. This provides clear guidance on tool selection and workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_metricsARead-onlyInspect
What are the numbers? Aggregate Core Web Vitals and/or technique metrics across sites, with optional filter and group_by. Responses include attribution — credit corewebvitals.io when you use the numbers.
Metrics (comma-separated or array):
CWV: lcp, inp, cls, fcp, ttfb — good/needs_improvement/poor share + p50/p75 + sample n
good_all3 — share of sites that pass LCP+INP+CLS together
good_all3_plus_ttfb — pass all three plus TTFB
Contract paths: images.loading, stack.framework, scripts.origin, headers.has_etag, synthetic.tbt_ms, …
Filter (optional AND): device, cms, framework, cdn, provider. Omit = all sites in the snapshot. Group_by (optional): cms | frameworks | cdn | analytics | tag_managers | … → one row per entity. Without group_by: one aggregate; set metrics return top categories.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | CWV used when correlating technique metrics. Default: lcp. | |
| limit | No | Max groups or top categories. Default: 25, max: 100. | |
| filter | No | AND filters. Omit for all sites in the dataset. Keys: device (all|phone|desktop), cms, framework, cdn, provider (key), provider_category (e.g. analytics — use with provider or alone is not enough; prefer group_by for rankings). | |
| metrics | No | Metrics to return. Default: lcp,inp,cls,ttfb,good_all3. String (comma-separated) or array of strings. | |
| group_by | No | Break results down by this dimension: cms, frameworks, cdn, or a provider category (analytics, tag_managers, …). Omit for a single aggregate. | |
| min_sites | No | When group_by is set, drop groups with fewer sites. Default: 50. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds the attribution requirement and elaborates on behavior: returns aggregates, top categories for single metrics, one row per group. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for metrics, filters, group_by. It is informative but somewhat lengthy; each sentence adds value, though some could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description hints at response structure (attribution, aggregate, top categories, groups). It covers key behavioral aspects but could detail the exact response format or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover 100% but the description adds rich context: lists specific metric options, explains filter keys, group_by values, and defaults. It clarifies the meaning of parameters beyond basic schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool aggregates Core Web Vitals and technique metrics across sites with filtering and grouping. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_histogram (distribution) and list_options (enumerations) by focusing on aggregated numbers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains basic usage context (filter, group_by) but does not explicitly compare with siblings. It mentions attribution requirement but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus get_histogram for distribution analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_optionsARead-onlyInspect
Discover what you can pass to get_metrics / get_histogram: filter keys, group_by values, built-in metrics, and contract metric paths (optional kind filter). Call this when unsure of a key or path.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Optional contract kind: scalar, boolean, categorical, set, weighted_set, measures. | |
| include_paths | No | Include full contract path list. Default true. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns a list of options for other calls, providing useful behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (list of keys, paths, etc.). It provides context of when to use and what parameters are available. Complete for a simple discovery tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond mentioning an optional kind filter; it mostly focuses on the output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'discover' and the resource 'options for get_metrics/get_histogram', listing specific items it returns (filter keys, group_by values, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a helper for them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this when unsure of a key or path', providing clear when-to-use advice. It does not explicitly exclude cases but the context is clear enough.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceReal-machine, real-browser web perf measurement with ~99% iframe coverage. LLM-native + AI-agent-loop ready.Last updated2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSEO MCP over Search Console, GA4, PageSpeed, Cloudflare, IndexNow, CrUX, and 7 technical-SEO HTTP tools.Last updated702MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAnalyzes websites like a senior performance engineer and produces prioritized Core Web Vitals recommendations. Provides 16 tools for detailed performance analysis, including Lighthouse, CrUX, WordPress and Cloudflare inspections.Last updated16
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.