Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: memory is scoped by identifier, persistence varies by auth status (persistent vs 24 hours), and values are stored as key-value pairs. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects, though it doesn't detail overwrite behavior, a minor gap.

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 (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides necessary information—purpose, use cases, storage semantics, persistence, and related tools—without unnecessary fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what to save, when to use it, how it's stored, persistence conditions, and pairing with related tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both key and value already described. The description adds a bit of context by reinforcing the key-value scoping and giving examples of value content (e.g., 'resolved ticker, target address'), but it doesn't substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete,' making its role in the memory workflow explicit.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' It also names related tools (recall, forget) and their purposes, helping the agent choose the right tool.

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

All Peeringdb 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve question-answering/discovery; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyze prediction markets; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily. Only the three PeeringDB search tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb-led snake_case (search_networks, validate_claim, subscribe) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts) and inconsistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk vs polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent verb_noun pattern is present.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a coherent surface, especially since the server is named 'Peeringdb' but only 3 of 34 tools relate to PeeringDB. The Pipeworx/Prediction-market/memory/AI-visibility tools form several distinct sub-domains that would be better split into separate servers or consolidated.

Completeness2/5

For PeeringDB, only search_exchanges/facilities/networks exist—no get-by-id, no facility/network details beyond search results, and no read/update operations. For the broader Pipeworx domain, coverage is fragmented: many meta-tools overlap while some obvious operations (e.g., updating a saved memory, deeper entity relationships) are missing. The domain is poorly scoped, making completeness hard to assess.

Resources