Skip to main content
Glama

Pvgis

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Changes

recent_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's new with X" / "latest on Y" / "what happened to Z this week / month / quarter" / "updates on Acme" / "news on Tesla recently" / "what's happening with Apple" — change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (filings since since), GDELT→GNews fallback (news mentions in window — GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), USPTO (patents granted; PatentsView API sunset May 2025 so this soft-fails until reactivated). since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile (filings + fundamentals + LEI + patents) regardless of window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today.
sinceYesWindow start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193").

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it fans out to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), explains fallback logic, soft-fail for patents, and the return structure (changes[] grouped by source + total_changes + citation URIs). No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but somewhat dense as a single paragraph. It front-loads example queries and key behaviors, but could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points). However, every sentence adds value and it avoids redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers all critical aspects: data sources, fallback behavior, date formats, sibling differentiation, and the structured return format. It leaves no gaps for an AI agent to misinterpret.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: for 'since' it explains ISO date vs relative shorthand ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and recommends '30d' or '1m' for monitoring; for 'value' it provides examples (ticker or CIK); for 'type' it clarifies only 'company' is supported. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a change feed (SEC filings, news, patents) for a company over a recent time window. It includes example queries like 'What's new with X' and distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile, making the purpose crystal clear.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'latest on Y', 'what happened to Z') and when to use entity_profile instead ('when you want the static profile regardless of window'). It also explains the fallback mechanism and accepted date formats, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Pvgis 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools serve overlapping query purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with subtle differences that are hard to distinguish without careful reading. Similarly, prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) have overlapping scopes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are highly inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), noun_descriptive (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and simple nouns (tmy, pvgis). No clear pattern emerges, making it hard to anticipate tool names.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is borderline high for a single server. While some utility tools (remember, forget) are justified, many tools are very narrowly scoped (tmy, generate_llms_txt) and could be merged or omitted.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide breadth (data querying, prediction markets, solar energy, AI visibility) but feels like a collection of unrelated domains. Core operations for data querying are present, but the solar tools (monthly_radiation, pv_performance) seem orphaned from the rest.

Resources