Skip to main content
Glama

Performance Review

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds value beyond annotations: scoped by agent identifier, persistence duration (24 hours vs persistent), and pairing with recall/forget. Annotations already indicate idempotent and not destructive, so description complements well.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose. Efficient but could slightly merge repetition of 'store' idea. No wasted words.

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?

Covers scope, persistence, usage context, and companion tools. No output schema needed for this simple tool. Could mention success/failure feedback, but not required.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds example keys ('subject_property', 'target_ticker') and elaborates on the value purpose, providing meaningful context 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?

Clear verb 'save data' with specific resource 'key-value pair'. Distinguishes from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by explicitly mentioning them as companions.

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?

States when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' Provides context on persistence for authenticated vs anonymous users. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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

All Performance Review 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions with only subtle differences in grounding and breadth, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions. The prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) each have distinct mechanics but a less careful agent could easily misfire between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: performance_review_generate reverses the order, entity_profile is noun_noun, and recall/remember/forget are bare verbs. The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes help group families, but the mixed styles prevent a higher score.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools this is a heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where agents struggle to discover and choose among options. The breadth is understandable given the many subdomains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), but the count still feels like tool sprawl rather than a tightly scoped set.

Completeness4/5

As a data/research/prediction-market platform the surface is remarkably complete: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, visibility audits, subscriptions, memory, and feedback loops are all covered. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct tool for bulk exports or for editing subscriptions, and some meta-tools duplicate discovery—but agents can accomplish the core workflows without dead ends.

Resources