Skip to main content
Glama

Noaa Swpc

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?

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that data is stored as a key-value pair scoped by the agent's identifier, and that persistence varies (persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour retention for anonymous). It does not specify overwrite behavior on duplicate keys, but the idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency, so this is sufficient.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage scenarios, storage mechanics + persistence, and companion tools. It is front-loaded and free of redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides purpose, use cases, storage semantics, persistence behavior, and related tools. The only missing detail is duplicate-key overwrite behavior, but that is not critical given the idempotent hint.

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 descriptions already cover both key and value with examples and allowed formats. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning 'key-value pair,' so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Save' plus the resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later,' clearly defining a memory-write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning pairing with recall (retrieve) and forget (delete), making its role unique.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use guidance with examples ('a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject') and states the persistence difference for authenticated vs anonymous sessions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the examples and complementary sibling references give clear context.

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

All Noaa Swpc 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters heavily overlap: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) all have similar purposes. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions to distinguish between them, and some boundaries remain unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb-first styles (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, subscribe) with noun-only names (kp_index, solar_wind, alerts), and disjointed prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no uniform verb_noun or other consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, especially for a server ostensibly dedicated to NOAA space weather. The count feels bloated, with many tools unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The server name implies space-weather coverage, and that domain has only a handful of tools (alerts, kp_index, solar_wind, etc.), leaving gaps (no proton flux, no Dst index). Meanwhile, the extensive non-space-weather tools are over-provisioned and their inclusion makes the overall surface incoherent and impossible to navigate as a complete domain.

Resources