Skip to main content
Glama

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: the data is self-aggregating from CF analytics-engine, no PII, and cached with windows of 5min-1h. This beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with three sentences, using bullet-like structure for clarity. It is front-loaded with the main result and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers all needed aspects: what it returns, how it works, use cases, and caching behavior. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of window choices (shorter vs longer windows) and notes the default is 24h. This provides some additional guidance but does not significantly exceed what the schema already conveys.

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 returns top tools, packs, and call volume over a time window. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and 'discovering', and the title 'Pipeworx Trending' accurately reflects the functionality. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' by focusing on trending data.

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 explicit use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and checking alignment. It also advises on window selection (shorter for current hotness, longer for steady-state). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the use cases are clear and helpful.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,743 tools with only subtle differences in grounding/fan-out, and the six polymarket_* tools overlap heavily in purpose. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent would frequently need to read the full text to pick the right one, and the beta variant is admitted to be currently identical to the stable router.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case with clear family prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, h1b_*, pipeworx_*, subscribe/unsubscribe), making the set look organized. The minor inconsistency is that some names start with an imperative verb (ask, compare, validate, scan) while others are bare nouns (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), so the verb_noun pattern is not universal.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the recommended range for an MCP server, and many are near-duplicates (three ask_pipeworx variants, six prediction-market analyzers, three memory/three subscription tools). The breadth may reflect a genuinely large data catalog, but exposing it all as top-level MCP tools makes the surface heavy and hard to navigate.

Completeness3/5

For the actual data-platform scope, coverage is solid: lookups, research, memory, subscriptions, and validation are all present. However, a direct fetch tool for the advertised pipeworx:// citation URIs is missing (deep_research even conditions citations on resources/read existing), and the server's stated H-1B identity is underrepresented with only three specialized tools.