Skip to main content
Glama

Macrostrat

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Alerts

recent_alerts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pull fired events from your subscription feed. Returns the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed — each carries source, citation_uri (pipeworx:// when available), and the raw event payload. Filter by type (e.g. "sec_8k") and/or since (ISO timestamp). Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones. Polls work fine; the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional — filter to one subscription type.
limitNoMax events to return (1-200, default 50).
sinceNoOptional ISO timestamp — return events fired_at >= this time.
mark_readNoFlag the returned events read in the same call (default false).
unread_onlyNoReturn only events where read_at is null (default false).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read' implying a state-changing side effect, directly contradicting the readOnlyHint:true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency that can mislead an agent into believing the tool has no side effects. Despite useful context about event payload and polling, the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 a single, dense sentence but front-loads the core purpose. It packs essential details without fluff, though splitting into two sentences would improve readability. Every clause adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately details what each event carries (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and explains the read-tracking behavior. It also notes the HTTP endpoint alternative and confirms polling suitability. The only missing piece is an explicit mention of limit/unread_only interactions, but those are in the schema and the tool is relatively simple.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies the type filter with an example, explains mark_read's effect on future calls, and mentions ISO timestamp format. This elevates it above the 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?

The description opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool's function of retrieving alerts from a persisted feed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or subscribe. It also specifies the contents of each alert, making the purpose 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?

The description explains when to use this tool ('Polls work fine') and provides an alternative access method via the HTTP endpoint, which aids decisions between interactive and scripted use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., search_within) or mention when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidelines.

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

All Macrostrat 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., geology tools vs. Polymarket tools vs. memory tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them (grounded vs. casual). Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use snake_case consistently, but the structure varies: some are verb_noun (find_columns), some are noun_noun (entity_profile), some are single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the server covers many domains (geology, finance, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This is a large surface for a server named 'Macrostrat', which implies a geology focus. The count feels bloated for a coherent set, though each tool individually seems justified.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is quite complete for its diverse sub-areas: geology has lookup tools, Pipeworx/Poly market has search, comparison, arbitrage, and memory/subscriptions have full CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed geology unit edits), but overall coverage is strong.

Resources