Skip to main content
Glama

Hathitrust

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: fan-out to multiple sources, GDELT-to-GNews fallback, USPTO API sunset soft-fail, and return structure with citation URIs. No contradictions 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 well-structured, front-loaded with example queries, and each sentence contributes meaningful information. It is somewhat lengthy but justified given the complexity of the multi-source fan-out.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). It covers main behaviors and edge cases like fallbacks and soft-fail, making it sufficiently 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by elaborating on 'since' parameter formats (ISO date or relative shorthand) and providing typical usage examples. It also clarifies that 'type' only supports 'company', going beyond 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 uses multiple example queries to convey the tool's purpose: returning a change feed for a company in a recent window, fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus 'entity_profile' (static profile vs. change feed). It also explains the fallback logic and soft-fail for USPTO. However, it does not explicitly list situations where this tool should not be used.

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

All Hathitrust 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

The tool set mixes tools from multiple unrelated domains (HathiTrust, Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making it unclear which tool to use for a given task. Overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between several Polymarket tools, while the HathiTrust-specific tools are few and buried among many others, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent across the tool set. Some tools use verb_noun (check_full_view, lookup_by_identifier), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research), and some are single verbs (forget, remember, subscribe). There is no predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to guess tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but only 3 (get_record, lookup_by_identifier, check_full_view) are relevant to the server's stated purpose (HathiTrust). The remaining 30 tools appear to be from unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the tool count severely mismatched with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the HathiTrust domain, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only three basic lookup tools with no search, browse, or management capabilities. The broader set includes tools for many other domains, but that does not compensate for the lack of coverage of the server's primary purpose.

Resources