Skip to main content
Glama

TensorFeed

by ai.tensorfeed

submit_wantlist_item

Submit a wantlist entry telling TensorFeed what data you wish was served. Aggregated patterns inform TF's pipeline priorities. Anonymous by default, no PII collected, items expire after 30 days. Per-IP rate limit 5 submissions per 24h. Signal collector, not a contract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesShort label for the data category, e.g. "real estate records" or "crypto on-chain treasury"
descriptionYes1 to 2 sentences explaining the use case. Max 500 chars.
request_typeNoWhat kind of thing you want. Defaults to "other" if omitted.
contact_optionalNoOptional contact for follow-up. Leave blank to stay anonymous.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses anonymity, no PII collection, 30-day expiry, per-IP rate limit (5/24h), and nature as signal collector. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and intent. Could mention expected response or error handling, but not critical for a submission tool.

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% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

First sentence clearly states verb 'submit', resource 'wantlist entry', and purpose 'telling TensorFeed what data you wish was served'. Distinguishes from sibling read-only tools (all 'get_' or 'check_' etc.).

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?

Provides usage context: 'Aggregated patterns inform TF's pipeline priorities', 'Signal collector, not a contract', and rate limit. No explicit exclusion or alternative mention, but siblings are all read-only, so this is the only write tool.

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