Skip to main content
Glama

Nass

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond: per-user scoping, authenticated vs. anonymous persistence (24 hours). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Each sentence adds value, starting with the primary purpose. The description is concise without fluff, front-loading the key action and usage.

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?

Given only 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers when to use, persistence, and pairing with recall/forget. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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 the baseline is 3. The description provides key-value pair context and examples of keys (e.g., 'subject_property'), but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It provides specific examples (e.g., 'a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' and 'forget'.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with recall/forget. It provides context on scoping and persistence. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

All Nass 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the specialized ones like nass_crop_progress and bet_research. However, there is potential confusion between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research, as they all involve querying structured data. The descriptions do attempt to differentiate them, but the overlap could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase with underscores and follow patterns like descriptive prefixes (nass_, pipeworx_, polymarket_) and action verbs (generate_, resolve_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies exist, such as 'search_within' versus 'discover_tools', but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still fits within a reasonable range for a comprehensive data platform. The tools cover a wide variety of domains (agriculture, finance, prediction markets, memory, etc.), and each tool appears to add value. However, the count is borderline high, and some tools like ask_pipeworx could potentially replace many specialized ones.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for its purpose: answering questions over structured data with support for analysis, comparison, monitoring, and feedback. There are minor gaps, such as the lack of a direct update mechanism for subscriptions beyond canceling, but the core CRUD operations are covered. The inclusion of meta-tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research fills many potential gaps.

Resources