Skip to main content
Glama

Wikidata

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 (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: the fan-out to multiple sources, the fallback logic, the USPTO reactivation dependency, and the return structure (changes grouped by source with counts and citation URIs). No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph that packs in examples, source details, parameter info, and return structure. It is concise given the complexity, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, fallback, soft-fail), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return value structure (changes array, total_changes, citation URIs). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains return values.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable context: explanation of relative vs. ISO date formats for `since`, the note that `type` only supports 'company', and the relationship to `entity_profile`. This adds meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company in a time window, fanning out to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `entity_profile`, which provides static profiles, avoiding confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). It also explains the fallback behavior for news (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited) and notes the USPTO soft-fail condition.

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

All Wikidata 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is extremely heterogeneous and overlapping. Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and entity-related tools (get_entity, get_wikidata_facts, entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity) have unclear boundaries. The server is named Wikidata but only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to Wikidata, causing confusion about which tool is appropriate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (get_entity, search_entities, list_subscriptions), noun phrases (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and inconsistent suffixes (_beta, _grounded). The verbs used are vague and not part of a coherent pattern (get, search, ask, discover, resolve, scan, validate, generate, remember, recall). The naming is readable but lacks a predictable system.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high for a server with a focused name like Wikidata, and nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory management, subscriptions, AI visibility). The count appears bloated and scattered rather than well-scoped; most tools could be split into separate servers.

Completeness2/5

For a Wikidata server, the coverage is minimal: only search, get by ID, and human-readable facts are present, with no SPARQL query support or property-level access. The majority of tools address Pipeworx's broad data catalog, leaving the advertised Wikidata purpose severely under-served. The surface is complete for a different domain but incomplete for the stated one.

Resources