Skip to main content
Glama

Data Iledefrance

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states that setting mark_read:true 'flag[s] returned events read' which implies a side effect, contradicting the readOnlyHint:true annotation. This is a critical inconsistency that undermines transparency. No other behavioral disclosure beyond the contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds unique information. There is no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys purpose, return structure, parameters, and alternative access.

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?

The description covers return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), filtering options, mark_read behavior, and alternative access. Given the tool's simplicity (all optional params, no output schema), this is sufficient. Missing details like ordering or error handling are minor given the openWorldHint.

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% (all 5 parameters are described in the schema). The tool description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type) and explaining the effect of mark_read on future calls ('next call only shows newer ones'). This goes beyond the schema 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 action ('Pull fired events') and the resource ('subscription feed'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on events rather than subscriptions. The verb-noun pairing is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage context (filtering, mark_read, polling) and mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. No explicit exclusion criteria or comparisons are given.

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

All Data Iledefrance 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask/tools for querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). The prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) further blur distinctions. Agents would frequently select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, dataset_info), camelCase (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and phrases (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). No pattern emerges, making tool discovery harder.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Île-de-France Open Data. Only 3 tools (dataset_info, query, search_datasets) relate to that domain, while the rest are a general-purpose data agent with many disjoint capabilities. The count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the declared purpose (Île-de-France data), the tool set is missing CRUD operations (no create/update/delete). For the actual general data use, there are gaps like missing person entity resolution, data visualization, and file handling. The deep_research tool requires an account, creating a barrier.

Resources