Signal Oracle
Server Details
Pay-per-call change-intelligence feeds for AI agents over x402 (deps, security, regs, tariffs)
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Most tools target distinct areas (dependency changes, package health, regulatory actions, tariffs, vendor risk), but `preview_feed` is a generic preview that can overlap with the specific preview tools (e.g., `depwatch_preview`), potentially confusing an agent's tool selection.
Tool names follow a mix of patterns: most use the suffix `_preview` (e.g., `depwatch_preview`, `regwatch_preview`), but `list_feeds` uses a verb prefix. Additionally, `depwatch` and `tariffwatch` use 'watch' while `packagehealth` does not, introducing inconsistency.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a monitoring service covering multiple categories (dependencies, health, regulatory, tariffs, vendor risk) without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The free tool set only provides previews (up to 5 items) and a listing of feeds, lacking full functionality for detailed queries, history, or actionable results. Users hit a dead end if they need complete data, which is a significant gap.
Available Tools
7 toolsdepwatch_previewDepWatch — dependency change previewARead-onlyInspect
Free preview of breaking changes / new releases for a software dependency. Pass an npm/PyPI package (resolved and fetched live if not already tracked) or a GitHub repo (owner/repo). Returns up to 5 recent changes plus the package's current version. Full history, significance filtering, and the LLM brief are paid via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | GitHub owner/repo, e.g. 'facebook/react' | |
| since | No | ISO-8601 instant; only changes detected after this | |
| package | No | npm or PyPI package name, e.g. 'lodash' or 'react' |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | |
| tier | No | |
| error | No | |
| entity | No | |
| source | No | |
| changes | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| question | No | |
| previewCount | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that data is resolved and fetched live if not already tracked, and returns up to 5 changes. No contradictions. Provides useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second covers inputs, third covers output and paid limitations. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, inputs, behavior (live fetch, output limit), and payment model. Output schema exists, so detailed return not needed. Complete given tool's complexity and supporting structures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context: mentions 'resolved and fetched live if not already tracked' and 'up to 5 recent changes', which clarifies parameter behavior. Also explains that 'since' filters changes after an instant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it provides a free preview of breaking changes/new releases for dependencies. Inputs are specified (npm/PyPI package or GitHub repo) and output described (up to 5 recent changes plus current version). Does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools but does not need to because the purpose is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the tool is for a free preview, and full features are paid. This implies when to use it (free preview) and hints at when not to (if full history/significance filtering needed, use paid). Does not name alternative tools or explicitly state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_feedsList all feedsARead-onlyInspect
List every change-intelligence feed: source slug, label, the question each answers, per-call prices, paid x402 endpoints, and free discovery URLs. There are ~120 feeds, so pass category to filter (e.g. 'security', 'regulatory', 'packages', 'premium', 'infrastructure', 'compliance') and/or compact: true to keep the payload small. Use the returned source slug with preview_feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compact | No | Return only source/label/question/price to keep the payload small | |
| category | No | Filter to one category (see the `categories` list in the response) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| feeds | No | |
| premium | No | |
| service | No | |
| discovery | No | |
| feedCount | No | |
| categories | No | |
| totalFeeds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about feed volume (~120) and filtering behavior, which aids agent understanding without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with optional params and existing output schema, description fully covers purpose, filtering, and integration with sibling tool. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining compact reduces payload size and category filters to one category with examples, enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists every change-intelligence feed with details. Differentiates from sibling preview tools by describing output and linking to preview_feed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on filtering by category and using compact mode for smaller payload. Also advises using returned source slug with preview_feed. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
packagehealth_previewPackageHealth — free previewARead-onlyInspect
FREE preview of a dependency's health: current version, deprecation flag, OpenSSF Scorecard, SPDX license, and known-advisory count (via deps.dev). The full ship/avoid verdict — per-advisory CISA-KEV active-exploit cross-reference, license-fit judgement, and LLM recommendation — is the paid /v1/packagehealth/check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package name, e.g. 'lodash' or 'django' | |
| ecosystem | No | npm | pypi | go | maven | cargo | nuget (default npm) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | |
| tier | No | |
| error | No | |
| stars | No | |
| license | No | |
| package | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| version | No | |
| ecosystem | No | |
| scorecard | No | |
| deprecated | No | |
| knownAdvisories | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds behavioral details: source (deps.dev), free preview nature, and data provided (version, deprecation, scorecard, etc.). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, bullet-like structure with key facts front-loaded ('FREE'). Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists to document return values, annotations cover read-only and open-world hints, and description provides clear purpose, behavior, and usage context. Nothing missing for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema documentation covers 100% of parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves; it only describes the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'FREE preview of a dependency's health'. Lists specific outputs (version, deprecation, scorecard, license, advisory count) and distinguishes from the paid version. Sibling tools have different names (depwatch_preview, etc.), so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it's a free preview and that the full verdict (CISA-KEV, license fit, LLM recommendation) is in the paid version. Provides context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_feedPreview any feedARead-onlyInspect
Free preview (up to 5 recent changes) for any feed. Pass the feed's source slug (from list_feeds). Optionally: since (ISO-8601) to window; scope to filter to an entity-id prefix on feeds that support it (e.g. an HTS code); or package/repo/ecosystem on feeds that resolve arbitrary entities live (e.g. dependency feeds). The full feed, status, and LLM brief are paid via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | GitHub owner/repo for dependency feeds | |
| scope | No | Entity-id prefix filter for feeds that declare a scope param | |
| since | No | ISO-8601 instant; only changes detected after this | |
| source | Yes | Feed source slug, e.g. 'depwatch' or 'cve' (see list_feeds) | |
| package | No | Package name for dependency feeds (resolved live) | |
| ecosystem | No | Registry hint, e.g. 'npm' or 'pypi' |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| hint | No | |
| note | No | |
| tier | No | |
| error | No | |
| price | No | |
| entity | No | |
| params | No | |
| source | No | |
| changes | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| question | No | |
| freeTeaser | No | |
| previewCount | No | |
| exampleRequest | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the preview is limited to 'up to 5 recent changes' and that the full version is paid. This aligns with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains parameters efficiently. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It explains parameter usage and limitations. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that output contains up to 5 changes, but that is implied from the first sentence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: source from list_feeds, since as ISO-8601, scope as entity-id prefix, and package/repo/ecosystem for dependency feeds. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Free preview (up to 5 recent changes) for any feed.' It identifies the resource (feed) and action (preview), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_feeds and other preview tools by being general.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use the tool: 'Pass the feed's `source` slug (from list_feeds)' and optional parameters for specific use cases. It also mentions that the full feed is paid, implying when not to use. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling preview tools like depwatch_preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
regwatch_previewRegWatch — regulatory change previewARead-onlyInspect
Free preview of recent Federal Register regulatory actions in the tracked industry vertical. Returns up to 5 recent items. The full windowed feed and the LLM brief are paid via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO-8601 instant; only changes detected after this |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | |
| tier | No | |
| error | No | |
| entity | No | |
| source | No | |
| changes | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| question | No | |
| previewCount | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds transparency by specifying the free tier, item limit (5), and the type of content (regulatory actions), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and limit, then mention the paid alternative. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but known), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It states the return limit (up to 5 recent items) and references the paid version for more, providing complete context for a preview tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'since' is fully described in the input schema (ISO-8601 instant, only changes after this). The description does not add any additional semantics or usage context for the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'free preview of recent Federal Register regulatory actions in the tracked industry vertical' with a specific scope and limit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like depwatch_preview and tariffwatch_preview by specifying regulatory content from the Federal Register.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that this is a free preview, returns up to 5 items, and that the full feed and LLM brief are paid. It provides clear context for when to use (free preview needs) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools for more comprehensive searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tariffwatch_previewTariffWatch — tariff/HTS change previewARead-onlyInspect
Free preview of recent US import-tariff changes. Optionally scope to an HTS code prefix (e.g. '6109' or '8471.30'). Returns up to 5 recent changes plus current duty-rate state for a scoped code. Full feed and the LLM brief are paid via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hts | No | HTS code prefix, e.g. '6109' or '8471.30' | |
| since | No | ISO-8601 instant; only changes detected after this |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | |
| tier | No | |
| error | No | |
| entity | No | |
| source | No | |
| changes | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| question | No | |
| previewCount | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral details beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: returns up to 5 recent changes, current duty-rate state for scoped code, and is free.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all key aspects: tool purpose, optional scoping, output limit, current state, and free/paid distinction. Output schema exists, so no need to describe return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes both params (100% coverage). Description adds output context for how param affects results (up to 5 changes, current duty-rate).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Free preview of recent US import-tariff changes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling preview tools by mentioning tariff changes specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains optional scoping by HTS code and returns up to 5 changes. Mentions paid full feed/LLM brief, implying when to use this free preview versus paid alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
vendorrisk_previewVendorRisk — free previewARead-onlyInspect
FREE preview of counterparty risk: tracked OFAC designations + product recalls we monitor for the name. The authoritative sanctions/denied-party (CSL) + federal debarment (SAM) screening and the CLEAR→PROHIBITED risk verdict are the paid /v1/vendorrisk/check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company or individual name to screen |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | No | |
| note | No | |
| tier | No | |
| upgrade | No | |
| trackedFlags | No | |
| trackedFlagCount | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the free preview does not include the authoritative screening and risk verdict of the paid version, clarifying limitations beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with 'FREE preview'. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, readOnly, openWorld) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers its purpose, limitations, and relation to the paid version. It is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not add new meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter is straightforward.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'FREE preview of counterparty risk' with specific tracked items (OFAC designations, product recalls), and distinguishes from the paid version by naming it and listing its features. The verb 'preview' and resource 'counterparty risk' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use this tool (free preview) and what the paid version offers, implying that for full authoritative screening the paid tool should be used. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or give alternative tools among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!