Skip to main content
Glama

Jwt

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fans out to multiple data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), explains fallback logic, and mentions the PatentsView sunset soft-failure. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false).

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 dense and front-loaded with example queries, covering all aspects in a single paragraph. Every sentence is informative, though it could be slightly restructured for easier scanning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure: 'structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs'. It also addresses edge cases like the USPTO soft-failure. This 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.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value: explains 'since' accepts ISO or relative formats, gives examples ('7d', '30d', '1y'), suggests '30d' for monitoring. For 'value', specifies ticker or zero-padded CIK. For 'type', states only 'company' is supported.

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 provides a change feed for a company (SEC filings, news, patents) within a time window, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'entity_profile' tool which provides static profiles. It is specific about the verb ('change feed') and the resource (company recent changes).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile ...'. Also provides example queries and suggests typical monitoring parameters like '30d'.

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

All Jwt 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language queries to the same underlying catalog, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently documented as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also overlaps in purpose, leaving an agent to parse fine-grained differences before selecting.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and several share recognizable prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps readability. However, the verb/noun order is inconsistent—compare_entities vs entity_profile, bet_research vs deep_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence vs ai_visibility_check—and bare verbs like remember, forget, and subscribe mix with noun-first names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set. The bloat is worse because the server is named 'Jwt' but only one tool relates to JWT; the rest cover unrelated domains such as data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning, so the count is neither scoped to the server's name nor internally cohesive.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Jwt', the surface is severely incomplete: only decode_jwt is present, with no sign, verify, encode, or refresh tools, so common JWT workflows dead-end. Even when judged as a general Pipeworx data toolkit, the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool surface creates a significant gap for agents expecting JWT functionality.

Resources