Skip to main content
Glama

Linkedin Humblebrag

by io.github.pipeworx-io

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses that the data is derived from a 'CF analytics-engine', contains 'no PII', is 'cached 5min-1h', and is a 'self-aggregating signal'. These details provide valuable behavioral context without contradicting 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core statement, followed by a structured list of use cases. Every sentence adds value—purpose, examples, data source, caching—without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains what is returned ('top tools, top packs, and total call volume'), the data shape ('(pack, tool, count)'), caching behavior, and privacy aspects, giving the agent enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'window' parameter with enum values and semantic guidance ('Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'). The description outside the schema only repeats these window options, adding no new parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now' and specifies it returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, or 30d)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_tools by focusing on real-time aggregated usage trends rather than general discovery.

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 explicit 'Useful for' scenarios: (1) discovering hot data sources, (2) confirming canonical tool choice, (3) aligning use cases with agent demand. It offers clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All Linkedin Humblebrag 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinctly named and the descriptions are unusually specific, but the set contains overlapping families: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data, and the beta variant is currently an exact duplicate. The entity/company lookup, AI-visibility, and Polymarket clusters also require reading the long descriptions to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with useful prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, and pipeworx_. However the macro pattern is mixed: many are verb-first (compare_entities, resolve_entity), many are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker, recent_alerts), and one puts the verb last (linkedin_humblebrag_generate).

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent name and stated LinkedIn-humblebrag purpose are served by exactly one tool. Even viewed as a general Pipeworx/research utility, the surface is bloated: duplicate ask variants, multiple meta-tools, and a sprawling prediction-market family push the count well past the 25-tool threshold.

Completeness2/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only generation exists, with no way to list, edit, delete, publish, or manage LinkedIn-humblebrag posts. The de facto Pipeworx research domain is much better covered, but the overall set has serious dead ends because the one LinkedIn tool is isolated and the core tools are oriented toward a different, unrelated workflow.

Resources