Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montgomery

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral details: persistence scoped by user identifier, 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions vs persistent for authenticated, and key-value pair storage. 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third provides behavioral details, fourth references companion tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, behavioral characteristics (persistence, scoping), and connections to sibling tools. No missing information needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond schema by providing example keys like 'subject_property', 'target_ticker', 'user_preference', and clarifies what values can contain ('findings, addresses, preferences, notes'). This enriches the agent's understanding of how to fill parameters.

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 saves data for reuse, with concrete examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference, research subject'. It distinguishes from siblings recall and forget, which are mentioned as companion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' Also pairs with recall and forget, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Data Montgomery 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which may confuse an agent about which to use for a given query. Additionally, the many prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) have subtle distinctions that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are predominantly lowercase with underscores and follow a descriptive pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). There are minor deviations like bet_research vs. research-related tools, but the overall pattern is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server covers many domains (data lookup, prediction markets, Montgomery County data, npm scanning, etc.), making it feel heavy. While each tool has a clear purpose, the broad scope borders on excessive for a single server.

Completeness3/5

The server provides a wide range of data access and analysis tools, but it lacks basic CRUD operations for its data sources (e.g., no way to create or update records in Montgomery County data or Pipeworx). Some domain coverage is incomplete (e.g., no tool for listing all Pipeworx tools, only discover_tools with top-N results).

Resources