Skip to main content
Glama

Taginfo

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recall

recall
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument). Use to look up context the agent stored earlier — the user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes — without re-deriving it from scratch. Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID). Pair with remember to save, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoMemory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds scoping details (anonymized IP, key hash, account ID) and pairing with other tools, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is clear, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing scoping separately).

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, scoping, and relationships with other tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'key' parameter. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the behavior when key is omitted (list all keys), which goes beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('retrieve' or 'list') and identifies the resource ('saved memory'). It explicitly mentions the sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget', distinguishing the tool's role clearly.

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 explains when to use the tool ('to look up context the agent stored earlier') and mentions scoping and paired tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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

All Taginfo 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar. Also, prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) could be confused. The set lacks clear boundaries between closely related tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive and use underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), but there is no strict pattern. Some are verb_noun (e.g., resolve_entity), others are noun_verb (e.g., key_values) or just nouns (e.g., tag_stats). Mix of styles, but still readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a coherent server. The set covers many domains (OSM, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets), making it feel bloated and unfocused. Ideally 3-15 tools for a single-purpose server.

Completeness2/5

The set is comprehensive for Pipeworx data but lacks focus. OSM Taginfo only has 3 tools (no creation/deletion). Prediction markets have many tools but still missing some like cancel trade. The domain is too broad to assess completeness meaningfully.

Resources