Skip to main content
Glama

Taginfo

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)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, which aligns with storing key-value pairs. The description adds behavioral details: scoping by identifier, persistent vs. 24-hour retention, and pairing with recall/forget. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Compact ~100 words, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value (usage, scope, retention, pairing). No unnecessary details.

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 storage tool, the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, persistence, and related tools. No output schema needed; the behavior is fully described.

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?

100% schema coverage means schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by providing naming conventions for key ('subject_property') and clarifying value as any text, which aids proper usage.

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 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' and provides concrete usage examples like resolved ticker, target address, user preference. It distinguishes from sibling tools recall and forget by specifying pairing actions.

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?

Clear guidance on when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions scoping and persistence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives beyond recalling recall and forget.

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