Skip to main content
Glama

Quiver

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

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?

The description discloses many behavioral details: account requirement, supported types with parameter examples, delivery channels with constraints (email, SMS with verification and cap, webhook with signing and auto-disable). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich context about what the tool does and its side effects.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value. It is well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then prerequisites, supported types, and delivery channels. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating delivery constraints in the delivery object description) but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return value (subscription id) and explains the always-on feed and optional delivery behaviors. It addresses prerequisites, type-specific parameters, and channel limitations. The tool has moderate complexity, and the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it 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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds significant extra meaning with concrete examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k items, polymarket_edge topic) and details on delivery constraints (phone verification, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It also mentions the return value (subscription id) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by being the creation tool.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (e.g., to set up alerts for specific event streams) and includes prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the tool's uniqueness among siblings makes this less critical.

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

All Quiver 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions. Overlapping areas like polymarket tools are well-differentiated by function (research, arbitrage, edge tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread). The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, polymarket_edges). The naming is descriptive and predictable, aiding agent selection.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side for typical MCP servers. While many are justified by the platform's breadth, the count slightly exceeds the ideal range, potentially overwhelming agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains (company data, drugs, prediction markets, economics, news, etc.) with CRUD-like operations for subscriptions and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct social media or custom API tool), but overall the surface is well-matched to the server's data platform purpose.

Resources