Skip to main content
Glama

Data Baltimore

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description details fan-out to multiple sources, fallback from GDELT to GNews, soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs).

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 a single paragraph that is informative and front-loaded with examples. It is concise given the complexity, though slight restructuring could improve scannability.

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 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers behavior comprehensively: sources, fallback, failure modes, return structure, and alternative tool. This is complete for the use case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the since parameter accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand, and suggests typical values like '30d' or '1m'. This justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 in the last N days, aggregating SEC filings, news, and patents. It distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile.

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 gives explicit usage examples ('What's new with X') and tells when to use entity_profile instead. It suggests typical relative values like '30d' but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the alternative.

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

All Data Baltimore 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool groups overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same catalog; entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities cover overlapping company-data territory; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Agents would frequently need to read long descriptions to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor inconsistencies exist: generic noun-only names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and bet_research, plus inconsistent prefixes (ask_, baltimore_, polymarket_, pipeworx_, scan_) that group by domain rather than action.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the heavy side for a data-access server, though the scope is broad. Several tools feel tangential to the core data mission (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), and the ask_pipeworx family plus the six polymarket_* tools inflate the count with overlapping functionality.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the domain well: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions, baltimore_layers), lookup (ask_pipeworx, baltimore_query/recent), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), comparison (compare_entities), profiling (entity_profile), change tracking (recent_changes), and prediction-market analysis. Minor gaps include no direct web search and no Baltimore-specific export/bulk operations, but agents can work around these.

Resources