Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: fan-out to multiple sources, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail, and grouping of results. No contradictions with annotations. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with example queries, making the tool's intent instantly clear. Despite its length, every sentence adds necessary detail about sources, fallbacks, parameter formats, and return structure. No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's multi-source behavior, parameter options, output structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), and provides sibling differentiation. No additional details are needed for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds value by explaining accepted formats for 'since' (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and providing a concrete monitoring recommendation. It reinforces the 'value' parameter can be ticker or CIK, and the 'type' enum is limited to 'company'. This aids parameter utilization 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 the tool provides a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' and lists specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO). Example queries like 'what's new with X' and 'latest on Y' make the purpose immediately recognizable. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile', which provides static profiles.

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 strong guidance on when to use this tool versus entity_profile: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile.' It also gives example queries and parameter hints (e.g., '30d' for typical monitoring). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it beyond the sibling comparison.

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

All Nasa 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 occupy nearly identical semantic space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,798 tools and differ mainly in output strictness or testing status. The Polymarket cluster also has significant boundary overlap, and the 'Nasa' server name makes the large block of unrelated data tools even more confusing to navigate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_apod, search_nasa_images, resolve_entity, validate_claim, unsubscribe), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx and polymarket_ are consistent. A few noun-first outliers like entity_profile, deep_research, and bet_research break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, this set is well beyond the comfortable 3-15 range and even exceeds the 16-25 'heavy' band. Only about five tools actually relate to the server's apparent NASA identity, while the rest form a general data/Pipeworx utility kit that would be better split into a separate server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Nasa,' the surface is thin: APOD, asteroids, Mars rover photos, solar flares, and image search cover only a slice of NASA's API portfolio, with no launch schedules, Earth imagery, mission/news feeds, or ISS data. The general Pipeworx tools make the server broad but incoherent, and a user focused on NASA would hit dead ends quickly.

Resources