Skip to main content
Glama

Colorado Information Marketplace

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detailed behavior: sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO with sunset note), return format (grouped changes, count, citation URIs), and fallback logic. 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 a single paragraph dense with information, starting with example queries and then explaining functionality. It is well-structured but could be slightly more streamlined; some phrases like '— change feed' could be integrated more elegantly.

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?

Given complexity (multiple sources, fallback, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: sources, parameter usage, return items (changes, count, citations). However, it lacks details on the structure of each change object and the exact form of citation URIs. The USPTO soft-fail mention is good but not fully explained. Overall, fairly complete for a complex 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% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining parameter formats (ISO vs. relative for 'since', ticker/CIK for 'value') and providing usage guidance, e.g., 'typical monitoring use "30d"'. However, the schema already covers basics, so the additional value is moderate but still helpful.

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 that the tool provides a change feed for a company within a time window via one parallel call. It uses specific verbs like 'What's new with X' and distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' which serves a different purpose.

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 when-to-use examples and an important when-not-to: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'. It also recommends typical parameter values like '30d' or '1m'.

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

All Colorado Information Marketplace 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile / recent_changes / compare_entities, and a half-dozen prediction-market tools. The descriptions are unusually detailed and mostly steer an agent correctly, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx and the prediction-market tools still require careful reading to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the conventions vary: many are verb_noun (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare nouns (datasets, metadata, query), some are bare imperatives (remember, forget, subscribe), and there are separate prefix families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. It is readable and consistent in style, but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the set is not tightly scoped: only datasets, metadata, and query directly relate to the stated Colorado Information Marketplace purpose. The bulk are Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, making the server feel like a broad platform bolted onto a state-data catalog.

Completeness4/5

For the core read-only lifecycle of the Colorado data catalog, search (datasets), schema inspection (metadata), and data retrieval (query) are covered. Minor gaps exist elsewhere: there is no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation record directly, and some utilities like generate_llms_txt or scan_dependency are unrelated to the server's stated purpose, but most cited workflows can still complete.

Resources