Skip to main content
Glama

Medicaid Intelligence

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

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 discloses the OAuth account requirement, feed always-on behavior, and SMS constraints (phone verification, 10/day cap). However, it omits the webhook delivery channel and its behavioral details (signing secret, auto-disable after 10 failures), which are only in the input schema, so the description is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured, scannable sentences. It is somewhat long and repeats examples already present in the schema's params and delivery descriptions, but it is not excessively verbose. The omission of webhook is a content issue, not a structure issue.

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?

The description covers account prerequisites, supported subscription types, feed delivery, and email/SMS options, and states the return value (subscription id). However, it fails to mention the webhook delivery channel, which is a significant option in the schema, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions and examples for each parameter type. The tool description adds the feed pull mechanism and OAuth context but largely repeats schema-provided examples (e.g., sec_8k items, fred_series). Thus it adds marginal value 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 clearly states 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream' and 'Returns the new subscription id,' making the verb, resource, and purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by indicating it's a creation action.

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 clear context on when to use: to set up monitoring for live-data events, with supported types and delivery channels. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, and it omits the webhook delivery option, which limits full guidance.

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

All Medicaid Intelligence 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as broad data-query routers. The Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) cover closely related trading/arbitrage functions with unclear boundaries. Even the Medicaid drug tools (medicaid_drug_state_market, medicaid_drug_trend, medicaid_drug_utilization) differ only subtly. Agents will struggle to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and descriptive phrases, but the patterns are inconsistent: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), some are noun_heavy (medicaid_drug_state_market, entity_profile), and some are single verbs (forget, recall, remember). Versioned names like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded add to the mix. No dominant convention emerges.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is far too many for a coherent set, especially for a server named 'Medicaid Intelligence.' A large portion of the tools (Polymarket arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility checks, pipeworx meta-tools) are unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. The count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Medicaid domain, the coverage is reasonable: drug utilization, enrollment, managed care, and plan market data are present. However, the server also tries to cover general data lookup, prediction markets, and entity research, making the overall surface feel scattered. Missing obvious Medicaid operations (e.g., provider data, claims, spending by state) suggest notable gaps if the stated purpose is Medicaid intelligence.

Resources