Skip to main content
Glama

Amplitude

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Changes

recent_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's new with X" / "latest on Y" / "what happened to Z this week / month / quarter" / "updates on Acme" / "news on Tesla recently" / "what's happening with Apple" — change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (filings since since), GDELT→GNews fallback (news mentions in window — GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), USPTO (patents granted; PatentsView API sunset May 2025 so this soft-fails until reactivated). since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile (filings + fundamentals + LEI + patents) regardless of window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today.
sinceYesWindow start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds rich behavior: fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic, sunset note, and return structure. 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 somewhat lengthy but efficiently packed with information. It front-loads with examples and then details. Every sentence contributes, though density might be slightly high for quick scanning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). It covers data sources, fallback, and limitations (USPTO sunset). Distinguishes from sibling tool.

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 3. The description adds meaning: explains type enum limitation, provides examples for since (ISO and relative), suggests typical values, and explains value formats. Adds value beyond 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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' and lists example queries. It specifies data sources and distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile, making the purpose highly clear.

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?

The description gives clear guidance on when to use entity_profile instead (for static profile), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond that. It provides context on the tool's coverage, making usage mostly clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Amplitude toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying data sources. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap as single vs. comparative variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between the query/research tools remain genuinely ambiguous for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

No consistent global naming convention. There are prefix families (amp_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) but within them the structure varies (amp_get_events vs amp_user_search; ask_pipeworx vs polymarket_fill_risk), and many tools are bare verbs or noun phrases (remember, recall, forget, bet_research, search_within, recent_alerts). The mix of verb-first and noun-first names with irregular prefixes makes predicting tool names unreliable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for the server's nominal purpose: only 5 of them (amp_*) relate to Amplitude analytics, while the other 31 form a sprawling all-in-one data/research/prediction-market platform. Even accepting that broader scope, many tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, several polymarket tools are specialized but still numerous), making the count feel padded rather than focused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side is thorough: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory cover most of that domain well. However, the Amplitude analytics side is thin — it only queries events, active users, retention, and user activity, with no way to manage projects, cohorts, event definitions, or user properties. There is also no general web search tool and no direct database/SQL exploration, leaving notable gaps for the advertised all-in-one positioning.

Resources