Skip to main content
Glama

Ooni

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description correctly indicates it's a write operation. The description adds significant behavioral details: authentication requirement, return of subscription ID, delivery channel specifics (email validation, SMS phone verification, webhook HMAC signing and auto-disable), and limits. No contradiction 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 the primary purpose ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription... Returns the new subscription id.'), then provides details in a structured paragraph. It is not overly verbose, but could be more structured with bullet points for types and channels. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: authentication, type-specific parameters, delivery options with constraints (phone verification, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable and secret handling), and return value. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 extensive meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k with ticker and items, polymarket_edge with topic and min_spread_bps, fred_series with series_id). For delivery, it explains validation rules and webhook signing details, greatly enhancing the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream', and specifies that it returns the new subscription ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by focusing on creation. The examples of subscription types further clarify the scope.

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 context on when to use: requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous/BYO cannot persist). It also explains delivery channels and limitations (SMS 10/day cap, webhook auto-disable). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, though the context is clear.

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

All Ooni 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (including beta and grounded) and deep_research overlap in functionality, causing some ambiguity. The OONI tools are well-differentiated, and other tools are distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern with underscores, but some tools like generate_llms_txt and pipeworx_feedback deviate slightly. Overall consistent with minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is on the higher side but justified by the broad domain coverage (data lookup, censorship monitoring, prediction markets, memory, etc.). Each tool serves a specific purpose, making the count reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively, including data retrieval, censorship analysis, prediction market evaluation, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no subscription modification tool), but overall it's well-scoped.

Resources