Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltables

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: setting mark_read:true flags events as read, affecting subsequent calls. It also explains that polls work fine. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (one compound) that front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Perfect structure for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It covers filtering, marking read, and alternative access. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling are acceptable for a read-only polling tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'Filter by type' and 'mark_read:true to flag returned events read') but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already explains each parameter adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed) and the action (pull). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; given the sibling list includes many unrelated tools, this is acceptable but not a 5.

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 provides clear usage context: explains filtering by type and ISO timestamp, mentions polling suitability, and notes an alternative access method (GET endpoint). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but covers the main guidance needed.

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

All Clinicaltables 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research, conditions/disease_names, polymarket_* family) have overlapping purposes, requiring careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. While many tools are conceptually distinct, the similarity within domains could lead to agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but patterns vary: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_noun (entity_profile), single verb (forget, recall), and some adjectives (recent_changes). No consistent structure across the set, though individual names are descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server is overly large for typical coherence. The tool count exceeds the 15–25 range deemed borderline, making it hard for agents to navigate and select efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers medical coding (ICD, LOINC, UCUM, drugs, procedures), financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Missing but minor elements (e.g., CPT codes) do not significantly hinder common workflows.

Resources