Skip to main content
Glama

Pvgis

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
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses beyond annotations: scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour retention for anonymous. Annotations show idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, consistent with description. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single descriptive paragraph with front-loaded purpose, no wasted sentences. Every sentence adds value (usage, behavior, lifecycle).

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 key-value store with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, persistence, and integration with recall/forget. Complete for agent invocation.

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 descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds examples of key names and value content, reinforcing purpose but not adding new structural meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool saves data for reuse (verb+resource), distinguishes from sibling tools like recall and forget by mentioning them, and provides concrete usage examples (resolved ticker, target address, etc.).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward, with examples. Mentions pairing with recall/forget for lifecycle management. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but 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 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