Skip to main content
Glama

Imf

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as persistence duration ('Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours') and scoping ('by your identifier'). It does not contradict the idempotentHint, and it does not explicitly state overwrite behavior for duplicate keys, but the added context is valuable.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context, storage details, and related tools. It is concise and every sentence contributes, though slightly longer than strictly necessary for a simple write operation.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, persistence behavior, and sibling relationships. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly; the only minor gap is lack of explicit return value expectation, which is rarely needed for a save operation.

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 `key` and `value` described and exemplified. The description reinforces the purpose of parameters via examples but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with `recall` to retrieve and `forget` to delete, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' with concrete examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference). It names complementary alternatives (`recall`, `forget`) but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Imf 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) have heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. The five Polymarket tools also have subtle boundaries, though the IMF, memory, and subscription clusters are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_data, resolve_entity, subscribe, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist: noun-first names like entity_profile and ai_visibility_check, brand-prefixed names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, and ask_pipeworx_beta using a suffix instead of an underscore.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the range that remains easily navigable, and the count is inflated by many meta-tools, overlapping query entry points, and five distinct Polymarket tools. The server is named Imf, yet it also carries npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, AI visibility checks, and prediction-market tooling, making the scope feel unfocused.

Completeness3/5

Subdomain lifecycles are reasonably covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has discovery, lookup, grounding, and research paths. However, the overall domain is so broad that a complete surface is hard to define, and the IMF-specific portion is thin (only get_data, get_datasets, and search_indicators).

Resources