Skip to main content
Glama

deckofcards

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Pipeworx Trending

pipeworx_trending
Read-onlyIdempotent

What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now. Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, or 30d). Useful for: (1) discovering what data sources are hot for current events, (2) confirming a popular tool is the canonical choice before asking your own question, (3) seeing whether your use case aligns with what most agents need. Self-aggregating signal — derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, just (pack, tool, count). Cached 5min-1h depending on window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowNo24h (default) | 7d | 30d. Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: caching behavior ('Cached 5min-1h depending on window'), data provenance ('derived from CF analytics-engine'), and privacy ('no PII'). This exceeds the baseline despite strong 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 well-structured and front-loaded with a vivid opening question, followed by a clear return summary, use-case list, and provenance details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the information provided.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool returns (top tools, top packs, total call volume, 'just (pack, tool, count)'), the meaning of the window parameter, and the data's nature (self-aggregating, no PII). Even without an output schema, the description is sufficient for a low-complexity read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the window parameter fully documented via enum and descriptive text. The tool description reiterates the window option but does not add new parameter syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 what the tool does: 'What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now' and 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window.' This distinguishes it from sibling discovery tools by emphasizing real-time aggregated usage and providing explicit use cases.

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 three specific use cases for when to use the tool, such as discovering hot data sources and confirming canonical tool choices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would have earned a 5.

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

All deckofcards 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical (beta just has experimental routing), and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all revolve around prediction-market signal detection with unclear boundaries. Also ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb-first (draw_cards, resolve_entity, discover_tools) and noun-first (entity_profile, new_deck, recent_alerts) styles, with inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_feedback vs ask_pipeworx) and no unifying convention. Some tools are bare verbs (recall, remember), others are noun phrases (polymarket_edges).

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'deckofcards' — only 3 tools relate to cards. Even as a general-purpose data/research server, 34 is on the high end and includes many near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx variants) and highly specialized tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The research side is fairly complete (lookup, grounding, comparison, profiles, claim verification, memory, subscriptions), but the card-deck functionality is minimal (only create, draw, shuffle) and lacks any deck inspection or hand management. The server's scope is unclear, making it hard to assess true coverage.

Resources