Skip to main content
Glama

Data Boston

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the key-value storage model, identifier scoping, and retention policies (persistent for authenticated, 24h for anonymous). No contradictions. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention that overwriting an existing key is allowed (though idempotentHint implies it).

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then provides usage context, and ends with pairing suggestions. Every sentence is useful and there is no fluff.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: purpose, when to use, scoping, persistence, and how it relates to sibling tools. No additional information is needed.

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 clear parameter descriptions for 'key' and 'value'. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema's descriptions, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'recall' and 'forget' as complementary tools, making the purpose distinct and specific.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' It also details scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous users, and partners with 'recall' and 'forget' for retrieval and deletion, covering both use and alternatives.

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

All Data Boston 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate, and there are multiple polymarket-related tools. The descriptions are unusually explicit and cross-reference when to use which, which keeps this from scoring lower.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and group into recognizable families (boston_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), giving the set a consistent feel. However, the set mixes verb_noun names, bare verbs like remember/forget, and adjective_noun phrases like recent_changes, so it is not a strict verb_noun pattern throughout.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server with the narrow name "Data Boston"—only three tools directly concern Boston data, while the rest cover general research, prediction markets, subscription management, memory, AI visibility, and npm auditing. Most tools have a purpose, but the overall surface is not well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-access purpose, coverage is strong: routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change tracking, entity resolution, discovery, monitoring, memory, and Boston datasets are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update operation, no explicit fetch-by-citation tool, and limited boston_recent coverage, but agents can work around them.

Resources