| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $25/mo |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 15 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Maintains a centralized, publicly queryable index of AI service manifests published at provider domains via `.well-known/ai.json` endpoints. Implements a pull-based aggregation model where WellKnownAI periodically fetches and validates manifests from registered provider domains, then serves a unified `registry.json` file mapping domain names to their manifest metadata. Supports decentralized provider self-hosting while enabling downstream systems (MCP clients, agent frameworks) to discover capabilities without direct provider queries.
Unique: Uses a decentralized pull model where providers self-host manifests at their own domains (`.well-known/ai.json`) while WellKnownAI indexes them, eliminating the need for a centralized manifest submission API and enabling providers to maintain canonical specs without intermediary control. Contrasts with centralized registries (npm, PyPI) that require uploading packages to a central server.
vs alternatives: Enables decentralized capability discovery without PII exposure or centralized vendor lock-in, whereas traditional API registries (Swagger Hub, RapidAPI) require uploading specs to third-party servers and often include user data.
Provides CLI-based validation tooling (`validate-ai.mjs`) that checks manifest JSON documents against the AI Manifest v0.1 JSON schema, reporting structural conformance errors and warnings. Validates required fields (manifest_version, provider, spec, capabilities), nested object structures (servers, auth, receipts), and field types (strings, arrays, URNs). Outputs validation results as JSON reports suitable for CI/CD integration, enabling providers to catch schema violations before publishing.
Unique: Implements validation as a standalone CLI tool that can be run locally or in CI/CD pipelines without requiring network calls to WellKnownAI, enabling offline validation and reducing dependency on external services. Outputs structured JSON reports for programmatic error handling, rather than human-readable text.
vs alternatives: Provides schema validation specific to AI Manifest v0.1 without requiring submission to a central service, whereas OpenAPI validators (swagger-cli, spectacle) are generic and don't understand agent-specific fields like capabilities or auth.jwks_uri.
Enables providers to declare bearer token authentication requirements in manifests via the `auth.schemes[]` array, specifying that clients must provide a bearer token (e.g., API key, JWT) to access the service. Manifests include `auth.jwks_uri` pointing to the provider's JWKS endpoint for token signature verification. Validation tooling checks that auth schemes are properly formatted and JWKS URIs are valid URLs. Enables downstream systems to understand authentication requirements and implement token validation without hardcoding provider-specific auth logic.
Unique: Implements authentication declaration as manifest metadata pointing to provider's JWKS endpoint, enabling clients to verify tokens cryptographically without calling the provider's authentication service. Supports decentralized token verification without requiring a centralized auth server.
vs alternatives: Provides simpler authentication than OAuth 2.0 (no authorization server required) or mTLS (no certificate infrastructure), while enabling cryptographic token verification without service calls.
Enables providers to cryptographically sign their manifests using private keys and include signatures in the `receipts.signature[]` array, allowing downstream systems to verify manifest authenticity and detect tampering. Signatures are computed over the manifest JSON using RSA algorithms, with signature metadata (algorithm, key ID, timestamp) included in the receipt. Validation tooling checks signature structure and format but does not verify signature validity (requires downstream systems to perform cryptographic verification using provider's JWKS). Enables end-to-end manifest integrity verification without requiring a centralized signing authority.
Unique: Implements manifest signing as optional metadata (signatures in receipts array) rather than a required field, enabling providers to adopt signing incrementally without breaking existing manifests. Supports multiple signatures for key rotation scenarios where old and new keys are both valid.
vs alternatives: Provides simpler manifest signing than full PKI (no certificate authority required) while enabling cryptographic verification, at the cost of requiring providers to manage key rotation manually.
Enables providers to declare contact information in manifests via the `contact.*` fields (email, phone, support URL, etc.), allowing downstream systems and users to reach out with questions, issues, or integration requests. Validation tooling checks that contact fields are properly formatted (valid email addresses, valid URLs). Provides a standardized way for providers to publish contact information alongside their manifest, reducing friction for service discovery and integration.
Unique: Implements contact information as optional manifest metadata with format validation, enabling providers to publish contact details alongside capabilities without requiring a separate contact registry. Validation is format-only, reducing validation overhead.
vs alternatives: Provides simpler contact information management than separate contact registries or CRM systems, by embedding contact details in the manifest itself.
Enables providers to declare service endpoints in manifests via the `servers[]` array, specifying endpoint URLs, types (REST, WebSocket, gRPC, etc.), and metadata. Each server entry includes URL, type, and optional description, allowing downstream systems to discover available endpoints and their protocols without requiring external documentation. Validation tooling checks that server URLs are valid and types are recognized. Supports multiple endpoints per service (e.g., REST API, WebSocket for streaming, gRPC for performance).
Unique: Implements endpoint declaration as structured metadata (URL + type) rather than free-form strings, enabling protocol-aware service discovery. Supports multiple endpoints per service without requiring separate manifests.
vs alternatives: Provides simpler endpoint discovery than OpenAPI (which requires full schema parsing) while supporting non-REST protocols (WebSocket, gRPC) that OpenAPI does not natively support.
Provides CLI validation tool (`validate-jwks.mjs`) that validates RSA public key sets published at `/.well-known/jwks.json` endpoints, ensuring they conform to JWKS specification and contain properly formatted RSA keys. Validates key structure (kty, use, kid, n, e fields), key format (base64url encoding), and key metadata. Enables downstream systems to verify manifest signatures using provider's public keys, establishing a trust chain for manifest authenticity without requiring a central CA.
Unique: Implements JWKS validation as a standalone CLI tool that providers can run before publishing keys, enabling early detection of key format errors. Supports the AgentPKI pattern of decentralized key management where each provider publishes their own JWKS rather than relying on a central certificate authority.
vs alternatives: Provides JWKS-specific validation without requiring integration with a PKI provider (e.g., Let's Encrypt), enabling lightweight key rotation for agent manifests without the overhead of traditional certificate management.
Provides CLI validation tool (`validate-crl.mjs`) that validates Certificate Revocation List documents published at `/.well-known/ai-crl.json` endpoints. CRL documents contain revocation entries (kid, revocation_reason, revoked_at) that signal when signing keys have been compromised or rotated out. Validates CRL structure, timestamp formats, and revocation entry completeness. Enables downstream systems to check whether a manifest's signing key has been revoked before trusting the signature.
Unique: Implements CRL as a lightweight JSON document (rather than X.509 CRL binary format) that providers can publish alongside manifests, enabling simple revocation signaling without PKI infrastructure. Supports agent-specific revocation reasons (e.g., 'key_compromise', 'superseded') rather than generic certificate revocation codes.
vs alternatives: Provides simpler revocation signaling than X.509 CRL or OCSP, suitable for lightweight agent manifest signing where full PKI overhead is not justified.
+6 more capabilities
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 WellKnownAI at 39/100. Glide also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
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