I build production LLM agents, and most of my week is evals, tool design and MCP integrations. Two problems kept coming back. Our agents needed reliable business data to reason over, and we needed one place to track how the agents themselves perform - eval scores, task success, latency and cost per run.
The Databox team set everything up for us. They connected our product database, Stripe and HubSpot, modeled the business metrics in the semantic layer, and created datasets for our eval results and agent traces. Our CI pipeline now pushes every eval run in through the Databox CLI, and production traces come in through the API. I didn't write any glue code.
Databox MCP is the best-designed analytics MCP I've worked with. The tools are clean, the metric definitions come with context, and our agents get consistent answers instead of guessing at raw tables. That alone cut a whole class of hallucinated numbers from our evals. A Routine compares eval pass rate, latency and cost after every model or prompt change and posts the diff to Slack, so we catch regressions before they ship. When something looks off, I ask Genie "which task types dropped in success rate since Tuesday's prompt change" and get the answer with reasoning. Eval summaries for product reviews are Artifacts Genie drafts for me.
If you run agents in production, this gives you governed data for them and visibility into them in one place.
Thanks for this, Keith, really glad to hear Databox is holding up as the reporting layer for agentic RevOps, and that combining it with the skills you've built has made things feel automated end to end.
You're right on the gap: today the MCP server is built for ingesting and querying data, not for creating dashboards or reports. That's a natural next step for making the agentic loop complete, and it's a useful signal for us on where to take MCP next.
Appreciate you laying out the HubSpot/Claude Cowork comparison too, good to know what made Databox the better fit as the reporting layer.