CoreDash MCP Serverofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceReal User Monitoring for Core Web Vitals. Query LCP, INP, and CLS field data from real visitors.
MIT
State of Web Vitals
Server Details
Core Web Vitals metrics by CMS, CDN, and framework — free remote MCP, no auth.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- corewebvitals/state-of-cwv-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- State of Web Vitals MCP
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. |
TDQS
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. |
TDQS
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. |
TDQS
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_histogram - First observed
get_metrics - First observed
list_options
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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 Connectors
Real User Monitoring for Core Web Vitals. Query LCP, INP, CLS field data from real visitors.
Website performance monitoring: scans, Core Web Vitals, RUM data and alerts.
RUM platform for web performance analytics, Core Web Vitals, and third-party script monitoring.
Free website analyzer: score any public URL 0-100 across 8 quality dimensions. No auth.
31
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for the Chrome UX Report, providing real-user Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) and historical trends for any origin or URL via natural language queries.32MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceReal-machine, real-browser web perf measurement with ~99% iframe coverage. LLM-native + AI-agent-loop ready.2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceSEO MCP over Search Console, GA4, PageSpeed, Cloudflare, IndexNow, CrUX, and 7 technical-SEO HTTP tools.70149MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
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.