Skip to main content
Glama

Oregon Open Data

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Compare Entities

compare_entities
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Compare X and Y" / "X vs Y" / "X versus Y" / "which is bigger / better / larger / more profitable" / "rank these companies" / "head to head" — side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. type="company" pulls LATEST 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL (off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly — AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan, etc.). type="drug" pulls FAERS adverse-event counts, FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric so "largest" / "most" / "biggest" reads off the top of the response. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity. Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valuesYesFor company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: SEC EDGAR/XBRL and FAERS data sources, off-calendar fiscal-year handling, sort order by primary metric, and citation URIs. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with trigger phrases and imperative guidance. Every sentence contributes useful selection or behavioral detail, though a slightly more structured layout would improve scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return semantics: paired data, citation URIs, and sorting. It covers use cases, input constraints, data sources, and type-specific behavior, making it complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with examples, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches semantics by explaining what each type retrieves (latest 10-K metrics vs FAERS counts) and emphasizing the 2–5 range, which adds value 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 opens with concrete trigger phrases and explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs in one call, distinguishing it from single-entity tools. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool by listing comparative query patterns and provides an imperative 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' directive. It also identifies the alternative (sequential lookups) and gives type-specific guidance for company vs drug.

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

All Oregon Open Data 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of unrelated domains: Oregon Open Data tools (datasets, metadata, query) are buried among dozens of tools for Pipeworx general query, Polymarket betting, memory management, and AI visibility. Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) making it impossible for an agent to distinguish the right tool for a given task without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is wildly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback), camelCase (bet_research, datasets, metadata, query), mixed (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent verb_noun or pattern exists, and many names are vague (remember, recall, forget) without connection to the server's assumed domain.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Oregon Open Data, which only has 3 relevant tools. The remaining 30 are from other services (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.) and do not belong, making the count inappropriate for the server's declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Oregon Open Data domain, the surface is bare: only search, metadata, and query. Missing operations like upload, update, or delete datasets. The heavy presence of unrelated tools (betting, memory, AI visibility) does not compensate for the gap in the actual domain coverage.

Resources