Skip to main content
Glama

Nhtsa

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback with rate-limit/5xx specifics, USPTO soft-fail due to API sunset, and the return structure. This is rich behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 dense but front-loaded with user-phrase examples that quickly signal intent. While longer than minimal, every sentence covers a distinct aspect (sources, fallback, params, return format, alternative), making it efficient for a multi-source tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return value shape (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). It covers data sources, error/fallback behavior, parameter formats, and when to use an alternative, providing complete context for a tool that aggregates multiple APIs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'since' parameter with examples and a typical-use recommendation ('30d' or '1m'), and reaffirms ticker/CIK formats. This extra guidance pushes it above 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 clearly states the tool provides a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' with natural language examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from entity_profile by naming that alternative for static profiles, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile' and recommends 'since' values like '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. This tells the agent when to choose this tool versus a sibling.

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

All Nhtsa 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The descriptions are extraordinarily detailed and do a lot of work to differentiate tools, but there is real functional overlap: three ask_pipeworx variants, six Polymarket/bet tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) that all target identifying betting/value opportunities, and overlapping ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. A capable agent could navigate it, but misselection risk is high.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case and readable, but the verb/noun placement is inconsistent: verb-first (get_makes, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, decode_vin) mixes with noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research, pipeworx_trending) and branded prefixes (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_*). No chaotic camelCase mixing, but no single predictable pattern either.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well beyond the heavy threshold, and the server named 'Nhtsa' carries only ~6 vehicle-specific tools while the rest is a general-purpose research platform spanning prediction markets, memory, npm packages, AI-marketing audits, and subscriptions. The scope is overloaded and the name badly misrepresents the content, making the surface feel sprawling rather than focused.

Completeness4/5

For the NHTSA vehicle domain it covers the lookup surface well (makes, models, recalls, complaints, safety ratings, VIN decode), and the broader research platform is genuinely deep with grounding, grounding-with-evidence, discovery, subscription, and memory support. Minor gaps exist (no direct vehicle-make year filtering beyond three fields, USPTO patent APIs are soft-failing), but no dead ends for core workflows.

Resources