Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc Regulations

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint annotation: it states that each call returns a new subscription ID, implying non-idempotent behavior, while the annotation suggests idempotency. Other behaviors (caps, verification) are well explained.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured details on types and delivery. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, supported types, parameter details, delivery channels with constraints, and return value.

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?

The description significantly expands on the schema by providing usage examples, constraints (like phone verification, daily caps), and detailed explanations for each parameter, especially for delivery channels.

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 tool creates a subscription, returns an ID, and lists supported types and delivery channels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (to create a subscription) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like list_subscriptions or unsubscribe, though the sibling list implies these alternatives.

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

All Fcc Regulations 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have poorly defined boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, the five polymarket tools all orbit 'find/validate trading edges', and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory and subscription tools are distinct, but the core query/edge clusters would cause frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed across the set: the ask_pipeworx* family uses verb+product, the polymarket_* family uses domain-prefixed nouns, fcc_regulation and fcc_regulations_search differ in singular/plural and lack a verb, and tools like discover_tools, entity_profile, and generate_llms_txt each follow different patterns. No single predictable convention holds across the server.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy on its own, but the count is especially inappropriate given the server is named 'Fcc Regulations': only 2 of the 33 tools actually serve FCC regulatory text, while the other 31 tools belong to a general-purpose Pipeworx data-query platform. The set is far too broad for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the stated FCC-regulations purpose, the two relevant tools cover search and full-text retrieval, but there is no change tracking, no notification of rule updates, no historical/version comparison, and no adjacent FCC filings/licensing data despite the server name implying broader FCC coverage. The extra 31 unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so an agent expecting FCC completeness would hit dead ends.

Resources