Skip to main content
Glama

Thesportsdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

What Can I Ask Pipeworx?

suggest_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that the output includes categorized examples with exact tool invocation details, and that it's drawn from a live catalog. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Single paragraph is efficient, uses slashes for variants, front-loads the purpose. Could be slightly more structured but remains concise and clear.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return type (category-bucketed example questions with tool shapes). Covers purpose, parameter behavior, and use cases. Comprehensive for an exploration-oriented tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter. Description adds value by listing example topic values ('finance', 'pharma', etc.) and explaining effect of omission (full spread vs focused).

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('returns category-bucketed example questions') and identifies the resource (example questions with tool+argument shapes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by stating to use this first when unfamiliar with Pipeworx.

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 you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Mentions optional topic filtering. Could improve by noting 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 Thesportsdb 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The sports tools are distinct, but the majority of the set has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blurs together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The sports subset follows a clean verb_noun pattern (get_player, list_leagues, search_teams), but the rest mixes several naming schemes: ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_* prefixed tools, polymarket_* tools, one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget), and compound names like scan_competitor_ai_presence. No single consistent convention governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far too many for a server named Thesportsdb; only 10 tools relate to sports data, while 32 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data/betting/memory platform. The set feels like two or three servers merged into one, making it heavy and unfocused for any single purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated sports domain, the surface is partial: you can get teams, players, league tables, and recent/next fixtures, but there are no player statistics, head-to-head records, venue details, or season history — leaving notable gaps. The Pipeworx half is broad but doesn't belong in a server with this name, so the set as a whole is incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Resources