Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi

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?

Discloses internal fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic, and known API sunset. Describes return structure (changes[], total_changes, URIs). Adds substantial context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.).

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?

Single paragraph of ~90 words, front-loaded with examples. Every sentence contributes: purpose, sources, fallback, parameter guidance, and alternative tool. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (grouped changes, counts, URIs). Covers behavior, parameters, sources, fallback, and alternatives. Fully adequate for a tool with good annotations and simple parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds examples, explains 'since' formats (ISO date and relative shorthand), suggests typical monitoring value ('30d' or '1m'), and clarifies acceptable formats for 'value' (ticker or CIK).

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 it is a change feed for a company in one parallel call, listing specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides natural language query examples and explicit guidance to use entity_profile for static profiles. Explains fallback behavior. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond the one alternative, but sufficient for decision-making.

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

All Pypi 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 or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently exactly the same behavior, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all present as 'find a betting opportunity' scanners. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent still needs careful triage to avoid picking the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and many tools follow verb_noun (get_package, list_releases, resolve_entity), but conventions are split between product-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_*), noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, deep_research), and bare-verb memory tools (remember, recall, forget). The result is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well into the overgrown range, and the count is especially mismatched for a server labeled Pypi: only a handful of tools actually relate to Python packages, while the rest cover Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions. This looks like several unrelated tool surfaces merged under one server.

Completeness3/5

For the broad Pipeworx data-research surface, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, and memory are all represented. However, for a PyPI-focused server the surface is incomplete—there is no package search, upload, or account/maintainer tooling—and the PyPI tools feel like an afterthought.

Resources