Skip to main content
Glama

TensorFeed

by ai.tensorfeed

register_free_watch

Register a free webhook subscription. TensorFeed POSTs HMAC-signed deliveries to your callback_url when the watch spec fires (price drop, status change, leaderboard rank shift, macro indicator threshold crossing, etc). 5 watches per IP, 25 fires per watch, 30-day TTL. Same delivery infrastructure as paid /api/premium/watches. If you omit secret, TensorFeed generates one and returns it; you cannot retrieve it again later. Same IP for management; manage via the REST endpoints under /api/watches/free/{id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesWatch spec. Examples: { type: "price", model: "opus-4-7", field: "blended", op: "lt", threshold: 50 }; { type: "status", provider: "openai", op: "becomes", value: "down" }; { type: "leaderboard_rank", provider: "anthropic", op: "drops_below", threshold: 3 }; { type: "macro_indicator", source: "fred", series_id: "T10Y2Y", metric: "value", op: "crosses", threshold: 0 }; { type: "digest", cadence: "daily" }.
secretNoOptional shared secret for HMAC-SHA256 signing. If omitted, TensorFeed generates a 32-hex secret and returns it once.
fire_capNoOptional cap on total fires for this watch. Capped at 25 for free tier; smaller values honored.
callback_urlYesHTTPS URL to receive POST deliveries. Must NOT be private/localhost (SSRF guarded).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: limits (5 per IP, 25 fires, 30-day TTL), secret generation behavior, and management endpoints. It also notes that the secret cannot be retrieved later.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and covers multiple aspects efficiently. It is relatively concise given the complexity, though could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers watch types, limits, and secret handling well. However, it lacks information about the return value or response format, which is important since there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context about IP limits and TTL but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 tool registers a free webhook subscription, listing multiple watch types (price drop, status change, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly read/search tools, by being the only registration 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 implies usage for free-tier webhook subscriptions and mentions it uses the same delivery infrastructure as paid watches. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of siblings makes it clear.

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

All TensorFeed 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several security/vulnerability tools (check_ai_supply_chain_risk, get_cve_record, get_osv_advisory_by_id, get_osv_advisory_for_package) have overlapping purposes, making it potentially confusing to choose the right one. Other tools are more distinct, but the ambiguity in this cluster lowers the score.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent (check, get, list, lookup, query, register, route, search, submit, whats_new). Some tools use 'get' while others use 'check' for similar retrieval actions, and 'whats_new' does not fit the verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools, the count exceeds the 25 threshold for 'too many', even though the broad scope spans many domains. The sheer number makes the server feel heavy and harder to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data domains, but notable gaps exist: no management of watch subscriptions (only register), no CVE search, and no model search. Write operations are minimal, leaving some workflows incomplete.

Resources