Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Platform Status

get_platform_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Pipeworx platform health and availability. Returns pack count, active tool count, and any service alerts. Use to verify system status before operations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
downYesNumber of down APIs
liveYesNumber of live APIs
gatewayYesPipeworx gateway URL
websiteYesPipeworx website URL
degradedYesNumber of degraded APIs
monitored_apisYesTotal number of monitored APIs
overall_statusYesOverall platform status

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (pack count, active tool count, service alerts), providing context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second describes outputs and usage. No redundant or irrelevant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers key outputs and usage context, sufficient for a simple health check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, baseline for no params is 4.

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 checks platform health and availability, listing specific return values (pack count, active tool count, service alerts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like data_freshness or recent_alerts by focusing on overall platform status.

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 to verify system status before operations,' providing a clear usage context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that alternatives are not critical.

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

All Pipeworx 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources