| 0 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $25/mo |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 15 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes arbitrary code snippets in multiple programming languages (Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Bash, etc.) through the Model Context Protocol, translating MCP tool calls into subprocess invocations with isolated execution contexts. The server implements MCP's tool-calling interface to expose code execution as a callable resource, handling language detection, runtime invocation, and output capture through standard process APIs.
Unique: Exposes code execution as a first-class MCP tool resource, allowing LLMs to invoke code runs as part of their reasoning loop without requiring external API calls or custom integrations — the server acts as a transparent bridge between MCP clients and local language runtimes.
vs alternatives: Unlike REST-based code execution APIs (e.g., Judge0, Replit API), this MCP approach integrates directly into the LLM's native tool-calling interface, reducing latency and enabling tighter feedback loops for agent-driven code synthesis.
Abstracts language-specific runtime invocation details behind a unified MCP tool interface, automatically detecting the target language from file extensions or explicit language parameters and routing execution to the appropriate interpreter (python, node, bash, etc.). The server maintains a registry of language-to-runtime mappings and handles version-specific invocation patterns transparently.
Unique: Provides a single MCP tool interface that handles language routing internally, eliminating the need for separate tools per language — clients call one 'execute_code' tool and specify language, reducing cognitive load and tool-calling overhead.
vs alternatives: Compared to building separate execution tools for each language, this unified abstraction reduces MCP tool proliferation and simplifies agent prompting, though it sacrifices language-specific optimizations that specialized tools might offer.
Executes code in isolated child processes using Node.js child_process APIs, ensuring that code execution does not directly affect the MCP server process or other concurrent executions. Each code run spawns a new subprocess with its own memory space, file descriptors, and environment, with stdout/stderr captured and returned to the client after process termination.
Unique: Uses OS-level process isolation via child_process spawning rather than in-process evaluation or containerization, providing a middle ground between safety and performance — code runs in separate processes but without container overhead.
vs alternatives: Lighter-weight than Docker-based execution (no container startup overhead) but less isolated than full sandboxing; stronger isolation than in-process eval (which could crash the server) but weaker than VM-based approaches.
Implements the MCP server protocol by registering code execution capabilities as callable tools with standardized JSON schemas, allowing MCP clients to discover available tools via the ListTools RPC and invoke them via CallTool RPC. The server maintains a tool registry with input/output schemas and routes incoming tool calls to the appropriate execution handler based on tool name and parameters.
Unique: Fully implements the MCP server protocol for tool registration and invocation, making code execution a first-class MCP resource discoverable and callable by any MCP client — not a custom API wrapper but a native protocol implementation.
vs alternatives: Unlike custom REST APIs or plugin systems, MCP's standardized tool schema and discovery mechanism allows LLMs to understand and invoke code execution without additional prompting or custom client code, reducing integration friction.
Captures both standard output and standard error streams from executed code in real-time using Node.js stream APIs, buffering output until process termination and returning combined or separated streams to the client. The server distinguishes between stdout (normal output) and stderr (errors/diagnostics) and preserves the order and content of both streams.
Unique: Separates stdout and stderr streams during capture, allowing clients to distinguish between normal output and error diagnostics — important for agent-driven debugging where error messages guide code fixes.
vs alternatives: More detailed than simple exit-code-only execution (which loses diagnostic information) but less sophisticated than real-time streaming (which would require WebSocket or Server-Sent Events support).
Allows executed code to operate within a specified working directory, enabling file system operations (read/write) relative to that context. The server sets the cwd (current working directory) for each subprocess, allowing code to access files in the specified directory and its subdirectories without requiring absolute paths.
Unique: Provides working directory context for code execution, enabling file system operations without requiring absolute paths — simple but effective for project-scoped code runs.
vs alternatives: More flexible than restricting code to stdin/stdout only, but less secure than full containerization with mounted volumes; suitable for trusted environments but not for untrusted code.
Allows clients to pass environment variables to executed code, which are injected into the subprocess's environment before execution. The server merges client-provided variables with the parent process's environment, allowing code to access both inherited and injected variables via standard environment variable APIs (os.environ in Python, process.env in Node.js, etc.).
Unique: Enables dynamic environment variable injection per code execution, allowing clients to configure code behavior without modifying the code or server configuration — useful for agent-driven workflows with variable inputs.
vs alternatives: More flexible than static environment configuration but less secure than dedicated secrets management systems (e.g., HashiCorp Vault); suitable for development and testing but not production secret handling.
Executes code synchronously, blocking the MCP tool call until the subprocess completes and returns results. The server waits for process termination, collects all output, and returns the complete result in a single RPC response — no streaming or asynchronous callbacks are supported.
Unique: Implements straightforward synchronous execution without async complexity, making it easy for clients to integrate but limiting scalability for long-running or concurrent workloads.
vs alternatives: Simpler to implement and use than async execution (no callback management), but less suitable for long-running code or high-concurrency scenarios where async/streaming would be more efficient.
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 mcp-server-code-runner at 30/100. mcp-server-code-runner 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