Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Roundrock

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to multiple sources, describes fallback from GDELT to GNews, mentions the USPTO API sunset soft-fail, and explains the parallel call behavior.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with example queries to set context, then explaining sources, parameters, and return structure. Slightly long due to listing examples and sources, but every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview: what it does, sources, fallback logic, parameter formats, return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), and a note about API sunset. It also gives usage examples and a direct alternative.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds value by explaining valid formats for 'since' (ISO date and relative shorthand), recommending '30d' or '1m', clarifying that 'type' only supports 'company', and that 'value' accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK.

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 over a time window, fanning out to multiple sources. It gives example queries and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by directing users to use that for static profiles.

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 explains when to use this tool (e.g., 'What's new with X') and explicitly mentions an alternative ('entity_profile'). It details the sources and fallback logic, but could be more explicit about scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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

All Arcgis Roundrock 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta which are currently functionally identical. The prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have fuzzy boundaries that could easily mislead an agent. Entity/company tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and validate_claim further blur the line between profile, change feed, comparison, and verification.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and are readable, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (query_layer, suggest_questions), some are noun-first (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_alerts), and a few are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The ArcGIS trio follows its own convention distinct from the Pipeworx family, adding to the mixed feel.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the reasonable ceiling for a coherent server, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the server's stated ArcGIS Round Rock identity. This looks like multiple domain suites (GIS, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one endpoint, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Pipeworx data domain, coverage is quite thorough with query, grounded answer, deep research, entity resolution, validation, discovery, and monitoring. However, for the server's stated ArcGIS Round Rock purpose, only three tools exist (discover, query, layer schema) with no export, geometry operations, or metadata browsing beyond basic layer info. The mixed composition leaves obvious gaps relative to the server name while over-supplying unrelated features.

Resources