Skip to main content
Glama

Jisho

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fan-out to multiple APIs, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews on rate limits/5xx), soft-fail for USPTO due to sunset, and output structure (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 front-loaded with example queries, then details sources and fallback behavior. It is longer than necessary but each sentence adds value (e.g., addressing API sunset, output format). Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it's well-organized.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs). It also covers edge cases (rate limits, sunset). For a multi-source aggregator tool, this is reasonably complete, though further detail on response structure could improve it.

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 enriches parameter understanding: 'since' gets examples and recommended values, 'value' explains ticker vs. CIK, and 'type' clarifies only 'company' is supported. This adds practical context beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 starts with clear example queries, defines the tool as a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call,' and lists specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT, GNews, USPTO). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile,' making the purpose unmistakable.

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 contrasts with entity_profile ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'), gives guidance on the 'since' parameter ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring'), and implies when to use (e.g., 'latest on Y', 'updates on Acme'). This is clear and actionable.

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

All Jisho 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are overlapping tools like the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence. A few pairs could cause confusion, but overall differentiation is moderate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are imperative verbs (remember, forget), some are compound nouns (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), some are descriptive phrases (recent_alerts, scan_dependency). The verb_noun pattern is absent, leading to inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Jisho' (a Japanese dictionary), especially since only 2 tools (lookup, search_words) are dictionary-related. The majority of tools belong to an unrelated data platform, making the count wildly inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the dictionary domain, the server lacks common features like example sentences or kanji details. However, the extended tool set covers many data retrieval and analysis tasks, though it is read-heavy with no update/delete capabilities for most resources.

Resources