Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Alerts

recent_alerts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pull fired events from your subscription feed. Returns the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed — each carries source, citation_uri (pipeworx:// when available), and the raw event payload. Filter by type (e.g. "sec_8k") and/or since (ISO timestamp). Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones. Polls work fine; the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional — filter to one subscription type.
limitNoMax events to return (1-200, default 50).
sinceNoOptional ISO timestamp — return events fired_at >= this time.
mark_readNoFlag the returned events read in the same call (default false).
unread_onlyNoReturn only events where read_at is null (default false).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. Description adds valuable behavioral details: explains mark_read behavior (affects next call), mentions payload fields (source, citation_uri, raw event), and that the feed is persisted. 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 two sentences, with the first front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence is long but packs essential details. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 5 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers behavior, filtering, read-state management, and alternative access. Missing explicit pagination limit info but acceptable given schema covers limit param.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds concrete examples like 'e.g. 'sec_8k'' for type, 'ISO timestamp' for since, and clarifies mark_read effect. This goes beyond schema 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?

Description starts with clear verb+resource: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifically names the resource (subscription feed) and action (pull). No sibling tool serves the same purpose, so it's well distinguished.

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?

States that polling works fine and mentions an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards, giving clear context. However, doesn't explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but since no sibling competes, this is sufficient.

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

All Google_maps 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes unrelated domains (maps, prediction markets, npm dependencies, memory storage) under one server named 'Google_maps'. While individual tool descriptions are clear, an agent cannot easily distinguish which tools belong to the maps domain and which are extraneous, causing confusion about the server's actual purpose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent convention. Maps tools use 'maps_' prefix, but other tools have names like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'forget', etc., mixing prefixes, verb styles, and underscore usage. No unified naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a specialized maps server. Only 7 tools are map-related; the remaining 30 cover disparate domains (financial data, prediction markets, system utilities), making the server seem like a random collection rather than a focused integration.

Completeness2/5

For a maps server, common operations like static map generation, place photos, or timezone lookups are missing. The inclusion of many non-maps tools creates a 'kitchen sink' effect, undermining completeness for the stated purpose. The tool surface is severely incomplete if judged by the server name.

Resources