Skip to main content
Glama

Timestamp

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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that memory is key-value scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, and 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions. This adds useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention whether storing with an existing key overwrites or errors, which would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences: first states core purpose, second provides usage guidance and storage details. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. No filler.

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 does not explain the return value or confirm success. However, for a save operation, this is often acceptable. The description covers storage behavior, persistence, and pairing with other tools. Minor gap: no mention of overwrite semantics on duplicate keys.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (key and value). The description's parameter examples ('subject_property', 'target_ticker', etc.) are helpful but largely redundant with the schema descriptions. Thus, the description adds limited semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the verb 'save' and the resource 'data', specifying 'data the agent will need to reuse later'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning them, making the 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' and provides examples like 'resolved ticker', 'target address', 'user preference'. It also tells to pair with 'recall' and 'forget' for retrieval and deletion, providing clear context and alternatives.

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

All Timestamp 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

Many tools occupy heavily overlapping territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim, and even entity_profile/compare_entities all route questions to similar underlying data and could easily be misselected. The Polymarket suite adds another cluster of near-synonymous tools. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to keep straight.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix imperative verbs (remember, subscribe, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun-phrase descriptors (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and time-utility names (now, from_timestamp, to_timestamp, relative_time). All-lowercase snake_case is consistent, but there is no unified verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable 3-15 range, and most of them are unrelated to the server name 'Timestamp,' which adds confusion. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies more than a tiny utility server, but the count still feels overstuffed and will burden tool selection.

Completeness3/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market domain the set actually covers, the lifecycle is fairly complete: query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscription management, and memory storage all have working operations. However, the surface is sprawling and includes one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency that do not fit any coherent domain, making completeness hard to assess and leaving a fuzzy, fragmented impression.

Resources