Skip to main content
Glama

Vessel Tracking

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral traits: parallel fan-out to three sources, GDELT-to-GNews fallback on rate-limit/5xx, the USPTO PatentsView sunset with soft-fail, and the structured return shape with citations. This is rich, non-obvious context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single dense paragraph but is logically organized: intent, sources, fallback behavior, parameter semantics, return format, and alternative tool. It is slightly long but each clause adds necessary information; no filler exists. The front-loaded examples help orientation.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: accepted inputs, source behavior with fallbacks and caveats, return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), and when to prefer an alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the `since` parameter's accepted formats (ISO date or relative shorthand like "7d", "30d", "3m", "1y") and recommending "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring, which goes beyond the schema's terse description.

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 tool's function: a change feed for a company over a specified window, aggregating SEC filings, news mentions, and patents. It uses specific verbs and examples ("What's new with X" / "latest on Y") and explicitly distinguishes itself from entity_profile, making its purpose and scope unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use context via example queries and states the `since` parameter formats. It explicitly names an alternative (entity_profile) for static profile needs, giving a clear when-not-to-use directive. This exceeds the minimum for usage guidance.

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

All Vessel Tracking 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 significantly overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family, deep_research, and validate_claim, plus a dense cluster of polymarket_* tools and two AI-visibility checkers. The ship-related tools are distinct, but an agent would struggle to choose among the many broadly similar query/research tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they follow no consistent convention: generic one-word verbs like remember and forget sit alongside branded names like ask_pipeworx, noun-style names like entity_profile, and prefix families like polymarket_*. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server name 'Vessel Tracking'. The live-ship tools are a tiny minority buried inside a broad general-purpose data, research, and prediction-market platform, making the overall set feel bloated and misaligned with its stated identity.

Completeness1/5

As a vessel-tracking server, the surface is severely incomplete: only ais_coverage_check, live_ship_position, and live_ships_in_area relate to shipping, with no vessel lookup by name/IMO, no historical positions, no voyage data, and no port-call information. The actual tool set is rich as a general data platform, but that is not what the server name promises.

Resources