Skip to main content
Glama

Design Feeds

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details multiple data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT, GNews, USPTO), fallback behavior, and current USPTO status. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 information-dense but somewhat long. It front-loads purpose with example queries, then details sources and param guidance. Slightly more structured formatting could improve scanability, but overall efficient.

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?

With 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers input format, data sources, return structure (changes[], total_changes, URIs), and limitations (USPTO soft-fail). It is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds practical context: notes that type only supports 'company', explains since format with examples, and mentions ticker vs CIK for value. This meaningfully supplements the 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 clearly defines the tool as a change feed for a company in a recent window, using phrases like 'what's new with X'. It distinguishes from the sibling entity_profile by stating when to use that instead.

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 usage scenarios ('What's new with X') and an explicit alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'. It also clarifies the since parameter options.

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

All Design Feeds 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable version. Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries, and ai_visibility_check is effectively wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent would frequently need to read large descriptions to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and many are readable verb_noun constructions (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, conventions are mixed: some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and some use domain prefixes or generic labels (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges, entity_profile). The naming is not chaotic, but it does not follow a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overstuffed for its stated 'Design Feeds' name, which only accounts for list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed. The vast majority of tools belong to unrelated domains like investment research, prediction markets, entity resolution, and memory management, making the overall surface feel like a general-purpose toolkit rather than a focused design feed server.

Completeness3/5

For the design-feed domain, only list/read/fetch operations exist; there are no create, update, or delete feed-management tools, and the subscribe tool does not support design feeds. For the broader Pipeworx/research surface, coverage is quite strong with memory, subscriptions, discovery, grounded lookup, research, comparison, and claim verification. The mix of two very different domains leaves notable gaps in each.

Resources