Skip to main content
Glama

Openiban

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: persistence behavior (persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions) and scoping ('scoped by your identifier'). Minor omission: no explicit statement about overwriting existing keys, but idempotentHint implies it.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage trigger, and persistence/scoping details. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant phrases, every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and reasonable annotations, the description covers usage context, persistence, and companion tools. It does not explain overwrite behavior or return values, but output schema is absent and idempotentHint covers overwrites implicitly. Slight gap but not significant.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes both parameters with examples. The description merely reiterates 'key-value pair' without adding new meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' — a specific verb (save) and resource (data/memory). It further clarifies the scope ('across this conversation or across sessions') and distinguishes from siblings by naming recall and forget as companion tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject)'. It also names alternatives for retrieval and deletion ('Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete').

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

All Openiban 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk) blurs together for an agent trying to pick one. entity_profile and recent_changes also both pull company data, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are single-vs-multi variants of the same probe.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with many verb_noun forms (validate_iban, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity). However, there are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and inconsistent prefixes (ask_ vs polymarket_ vs suggest_) that break a clear pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is borderline-heavy for a data-research API, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Openiban yet contains only two IBAN tools and 31 unrelated Pipeworx/data tools. The count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent identity, though not extreme enough for a 1 or 2.

Completeness2/5

For the Pipeworx data-research domain the surface is quite rich (query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory). For the server's stated IBAN purpose, only validate and suggest_iban exist — no generation, parsing, batch checks, or bank detail coverage — so the tool set is severely incomplete relative to the server name.

Resources