Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses fan-out to multiple sources, fallback from GDELT to GNews, and soft-fail for USPTO. No contradiction with annotations which correctly mark it as read-only and idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with usage examples, each sentence adds necessary detail. Slightly longer but still concise given the complexity of multiple sources.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return structure (grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). Covers all aspects of a multi-source tool comprehensively.

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% but description adds value with relative time shorthand, ticker vs CIK examples, and only company type restriction. Extra context beyond schema baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a change feed for a company over a time window, listing sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by specifying when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit example queries and directs to use entity_profile for static profile instead. Explains the since parameter with examples and typical monitoring value.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clearly distinct purposes, but research entry points overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the beta tool currently behaves identically to the stable version. Polymarket tools and AI visibility tools also create multiple near-overlapping options that require careful reading to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names follow snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent pattern: some are verb-first (ask_, resolve_, validate_, scan_), some noun-first (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and some are bare nouns (distance, destination). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel less predictable than it should.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named Geodistance, and the actual purpose is a sprawling data-research and prediction-market toolkit with a few geospatial helpers. The set would be better split into focused servers; as-is it feels bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness3/5

The data-research surface is quite complete (discovery, lookup, grounded answers, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, feedback), and geodistance has core operations like distance, destination, and coordinate conversion. However, the geographic functionality is thin and the overall grab-bag composition makes it hard to assess completeness against any single coherent domain; obvious geospatial features like geocoding, routing, or area calculations are absent.