Skip to main content
Glama

Entur

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").

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), detailing the data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), rate limits, soft-failures, and return format (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with clear usage examples and covers all key aspects without unnecessary words. It could benefit from slight structuring, but it remains efficient and informative.

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 the complexity (multiple data sources, fallback logic, and no output schema), the description adequately explains the return structure (changes array, total_changes, citation URIs) and source behaviors. It covers the USPTO limitation and GNews fallback, making it fairly complete.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description enhances them with practical examples (e.g., '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y' for `since`) and constrains the `type` parameter to 'company'. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a change feed for a company over a specified window, using specific verbs like 'What's new with X' and 'latest on Y'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by directing to use that for static profiles.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'entity_profile' ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). It also includes example queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative is clearly named.

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

All Entur 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Although many tools are individually well-described, there are several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket edge/arbitrage tools, and AI-visibility checks vs their competitor-comparison wrapper. An agent can easily pick the wrong one because the boundaries (beta vs stable, grounded vs routed, edge vs arbitrage) are subtle despite the verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, so naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some tools use entur_/polymarket_/pipeworx_ prefixes, others are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family also doesn't follow the pipeworx_ prefix convention used by neighboring tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the healthy range for a focused MCP server, and only three tools relate to the Entur transport domain implied by the server name. The other 31 tools form a separate, broad data/prediction-market product that appears bolted on, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Entur transport subset has stops search, departures, and journey planning, but misses common public-transport needs such as disruptions, service alerts, and fare/ticket information. The broader tool set is extensive but lacks a single coherent domain to be complete against, leaving the overall surface scattered and hard to trust as an integrated whole.

Resources