Skip to main content
Glama

Hunter

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: persistence scope (authenticated vs anonymous), 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions, and scoping by identifier. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences cover purpose, usage, and behavioral traits efficiently. No redundant statements; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, persistence, and pairing with siblings. It is complete and actionable.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description repeats key-value pair concept but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'save' and the resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later', with explicit examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning pairing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples (e.g., resolved ticker, target address). It mentions pairing with recall and forget, indicating alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

All Hunter 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 genuinely blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,743-tool catalog, and the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on 'should I bet / where is the edge'. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent would still struggle to pick correctly among near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is uniformly snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools, validate_claim) mixes with noun_noun (domain_search, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_changes), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Readable, but patternless.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is scope incoherence: a server named 'Hunter' dedicates only 3 of 34 tools to Hunter.io email lookup while the remaining 31 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research/prediction-market platform. The count is not earned by a single coherent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research core is quite thorough: entity resolution, single-lookup, grounded answers, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, semantic search-within-records, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory form a full research lifecycle. However, the domain is a grab-bag spanning email finding, npm dependency checking, prediction markets, and data research, and the three Hunter.io tools that match the server name are only a thin fragment of the surface.

Resources