Skip to main content
Glama

Fmcsa

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details such as SMS daily cap ('10/day') and webhook auto-disable after 10 consecutive failures. It also explains authentication requirements. No contradiction 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 paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose and then details. It is informative but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for delivery types). However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and every sentence contributes value.

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 (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, auth requirements, all supported types with parameter examples, delivery options with caveats, and key behaviors. It lacks explicit mention of return structure beyond the ID, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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%, baseline 3. The description enriches parameters by providing type-specific examples (e.g., sec_8k items, polymarket_edge topic) and delivery sub-options with format constraints and behaviors (e.g., phone verification, webhook signing secret). This adds significant 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's action ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription'), specifies the resource ('subscription'), and outputs ('Returns the new subscription id'). It differentiates from siblings like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on creation and listing supported types and delivery channels.

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 prerequisites ('Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account; anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions'), and lists supported types with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, though the context signals include many siblings.

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

All Fmcsa 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, as are bet_research and polymarket_edges. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (fmcsa_carrier_lookup), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, recall), and phrases (suggest_questions, generate_llms_txt). No consistent pattern, making it harder for an agent to infer tool purpose from name alone.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is high for a single server, but the server aggregates many domains. While each tool may serve a purpose, the count feels bloated and beyond typical scope (3-15). Some tools could be merged (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants).

Completeness2/5

For the FMCSA domain, the four tools provide decent coverage. However, the server includes many tools for other domains (e.g., prediction markets, company profiles) without full lifecycle support (e.g., only lookup, no create/update). The set feels like a random collection rather than a coherent domain.

Resources