Skip to main content
Glama

Biostudies

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Alerts

recent_alerts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pull fired events from your subscription feed. Returns the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed — each carries source, citation_uri (pipeworx:// when available), and the raw event payload. Filter by type (e.g. "sec_8k") and/or since (ISO timestamp). Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones. Polls work fine; the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional — filter to one subscription type.
limitNoMax events to return (1-200, default 50).
sinceNoOptional ISO timestamp — return events fired_at >= this time.
mark_readNoFlag the returned events read in the same call (default false).
unread_onlyNoReturn only events where read_at is null (default false).

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which implies a state change. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint:true, which indicates the tool does not modify state. This contradiction means the description misrepresents the tool's behavior, severely impacting transparency.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides parameter details, behavior disclosure, and an alternative endpoint. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 has five parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), filtering options, the effect of mark_read, polling support, and even an alternative URL. It leaves no major gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context for key parameters: explains 'type' with an example ('sec_8k'), specifies 'since' as ISO timestamp, and clarifies that 'mark_read' causes returned events to be flagged as read so subsequent calls only show newer ones. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb 'Pull fired events' and identifies the resource as 'your subscription feed'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'recent alerts from the evaluator', which is not covered by other tools like list_subscriptions or ask_pipeworx.

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 filter by type and/or ISO timestamp, and how mark_read controls read state for subsequent calls. It also notes that polling works fine and provides an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare to siblings.

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

All Biostudies 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

Several tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research are overlapping query modes, and ai_visibility_check / scan_competitor_ai_presence / discover_tools / suggest_questions all blur into discovery or visibility tasks. The two actual BioStudies tools are clear, but they are buried in a server dominated by Pipeworx meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, and many follow a verb_noun shape such as search_studies, get_study, and discover_tools. However, the convention is inconsistent across the set: noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_edges, brand-prefixed names like pipeworx_feedback, and verb-first product names like ask_pipeworx all coexist, making the pattern harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well into the too-many range, and the count is especially inappropriate for a server named Biostudies since only search_studies and get_study actually belong to that domain. The rest form a sprawling general-purpose data-research platform that appears to have been merged into one server without a clear scope.

Completeness3/5

For the BioStudies-specific surface, search_studies and get_study provide reasonable read-only coverage for the EBI archive. But as the broader research platform the other 31 tools imply, the set is hard to evaluate for completeness because most actual data access is delegated to Pipeworx's hidden 5,718 tools rather than exposed directly, leaving notable gaps in transparency and direct source-level control.

Resources