The Committee
Server Details
the-committee MCP — wraps StupidAPIs (requires X-API-Key)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-the-committee
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes: ask_pipeworx for queries, discover_tools for finding tools, and the three memory tools for storage. The memory tools (forget, recall, remember) are clearly a cohesive set, though ask_pipeworx and discover_tools both involve tool discovery/searching, but their functions are different enough.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, forget, recall, remember. This is consistent and predictable.
With 5 tools, the set is concise and focused. The server's purpose appears to be a combination of a query engine (ask_pipeworx), a tool discovery mechanism (discover_tools), and memory management (forget, recall, remember). Each tool is justified.
The memory tools provide full CRUD (create via remember, read via recall, delete via forget), meeting completeness for that subdomain. The query and discovery tools are sufficient for their roles. A minor gap might be the lack of a tool to directly update a memory, but the set covers the core functionality.
Available Tools
5 toolsask_pipeworxAInspect
Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source. Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills the arguments, and returns the result. No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need. Examples: "What is the US trade deficit with China?", "Look up adverse events for ozempic", "Get Apple's latest 10-K filing".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your question or request in natural language |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains that the tool internally selects the right tool and fills arguments, and returns the result. However, it does not specify response format, error handling, or limitations (e.g., scope of data sources), which would be beneficial for an autonomous agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by explanation and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers input format, behavior (tool selection), and provides examples. No additional context is needed for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'question' adequately. The description adds value by clarifying that the question should be in natural language and providing examples, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description. No additional parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool accepts plain English questions and returns answers by selecting the appropriate data source. It specifies the verb 'ask' and the resource 'Pipeworx', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on natural language query resolution rather than tool discovery, memory, or deliberation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when you want to ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best data source. It advises against browsing tools or learning schemas, and provides concrete examples of appropriate queries. No exclusions are needed given the tool's general-purpose nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
discover_toolsAInspect
Search the Pipeworx tool catalog by describing what you need. Returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions. Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns 'the most relevant tools with names and descriptions,' but does not disclose details like whether results are ranked, whether the search is semantic, or if there are any side effects. The behavior is generally clear but lacks deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every word efficiently. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is lack of return format detail, but this is acceptable for a search/discovery tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing the natural language usage ('describe what you need') and providing an example query, which helps the agent understand the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb+resource: 'Search the Pipeworx tool catalog' to discover tools. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' (which likely answers questions) and memory tools (forget/recall/remember). The purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This provides clear guidance on invocation order and context, and implicitly advises against using other tools prematurely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forgetCInspect
Delete a stored memory by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states deletion but does not disclose if deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, or affects other operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by front-loading the key parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one param, but no output schema and no annotations. Description lacks details on return value or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it just restates 'Memory key to delete'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Delete') and specifies the resource ('stored memory by key'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' (read) and 'remember' (write).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'remember'. No mention of prerequisites or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallAInspect
Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key). Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description takes full burden. It discloses that omitting key lists all, and that memory can be from current or previous sessions. However, it doesn't mention if retrieval is read-only or has side effects, but the context implies it's safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameter structure (one optional param), no output schema, and no nested objects, description is complete enough. It explains the two modes of operation clearly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters fully. Description adds meaning: explains what happens when key is provided vs omitted, going beyond schema's 'description' field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a memory by key or lists all memories when key is omitted. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'forget' by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use this tool to retrieve context saved earlier, and that omitting key lists all memories. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, 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.
rememberAInspect
Store a key-value pair in your session memory. Use this to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference") | |
| value | Yes | Value to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that memory persists for authenticated users and 24 hours for anonymous sessions, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention any limits on key/value sizes or number of entries, which could affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, use cases, and persistence detail. Front-loaded with core action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple input schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. Could mention key collision behavior (overwrite or error) for completeness, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by giving examples of keys (subject_property, target_ticker) and values (findings, addresses), but the schema already describes the parameters well. No additional semantic guidance beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it stores a key-value pair in session memory, with specific examples of use cases (intermediate findings, user preferences, context). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall' by explicitly focusing on storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 save context across calls) and notes persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, 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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!