Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

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").

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the multi-source fan-out (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), the fallback logic on rate limits/5xx, and the patent API sunset issue. It also clarifies the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs), which is not present in the 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 information-dense and each section earns its place, but the opening list of example queries is somewhat repetitive and could be trimmed. However, it is front-loaded with purpose and the rest is well-organized, making it appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing the return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs) and covering data source limitations and parameter formats. It also names an alternative tool. The only minor gap is the exact inner structure of each change item, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the `since` parameter's accepted formats (ISO vs relative shorthand with examples like '7d', '3m') and recommending '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. The `value` parameter's ticker/CIK ambiguity is also reinforced. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 identifies the tool as a change feed for a company over a time window, using specific verbs like 'fans out' and 'returns'. It distinguishes itself from entity_profile by explicitly stating that entity_profile provides static profiles, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly names entity_profile as the alternative when a static profile is needed, and explains when to use recent_changes (for windowed change feeds). It also details the GDELT→GNews fallback and the USPTO soft-fail, giving contextual guidance on expected behavior.

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

All Github_private 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

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources