Skip to main content
Glama

Snb Ch

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: persistence differences between authenticated users and anonymous sessions (24 hours) and key-value scoping by identifier. It does not mention whether storing an existing key overwrites the value, but the idempotentHint partially covers that.

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 contains five sentences, each adding necessary information: the core purpose, usage signals, storage structure, persistence rules, and related tools. There is no filler or repetition of structured data.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has only two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations are present. The description covers purpose, when to use, persistence behavior, and sibling relationships. Minor gaps like overwrite semantics and response format prevent a perfect score, but the description is largely complete for a simple memory store.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the key-value model and mentions scoping by identifier, but it does not add meaningful detail about the key/value parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific action ('Save data the agent will need to reuse later') and identifies the resource as key-value memory. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming recall and forget as its counterparts for retrieval and deletion.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when you discover something worth carrying forward') and gives concrete examples. It mentions pairing with recall and forget, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives.

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

All Snb Ch 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and suggest_questions all handle question-answering, with beta currently identical to the main router. The Polymarket family has six distinct but related tools, and descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect when the boundaries are subtle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some start with verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim), while many are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention, and the repeated ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes add some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server covers a broad data-research and prediction-market domain, the count exceeds what is typically manageable, and several tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, discover_tools) could be collapsed or merged without losing core capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the domain well: querying, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to fetch a full SEC filing body directly, relying on ask_pipeworx routing), but there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purposes.

Resources