Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sncf

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds details: uses latest 10-K data, handles off-calendar fiscal years, returns sorted results and citation URIs. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with query examples, each sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified given the information density. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description explains it 'Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity.' Covers data sources, sorting, and typical use cases. While exact output structure is vague, it is adequate for the tool's role.

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% but description adds significant meaning: explains what each type returns, acceptable value formats (tickers vs drug names), min/max items, and sort behavior. Goes well beyond 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 clearly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with concrete query examples. It distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups, implying it replaces multiple calls to entity_profile or similar tools.

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 advises 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' Provides context on data sources per type but does not explicitly list sibling tools to avoid.

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

All Data Sncf 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

Several tool clusters are hard to distinguish: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', creating a literal duplicate, and the six polymarket_* tools all orbit 'find a trading edge on prediction markets' with only subtle differences in scope. ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_grounded / validate_claim / deep_research also overlap on fact-finding, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve 'what can I do here' discovery. The memory trio and subscription lifecycle are clean, but the central Q&A and prediction-market areas carry real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes several incompatible conventions: bare verbs (query, recall, forget, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, dataset_info), verb_noun pairs (search_datasets, compare_entities, validate_claim), and prefixed families (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*). Family prefixes provide local consistency, but there is no unifying pattern across the server, and the three SNCF tools follow a different style from the Pipeworx tools. The naming reads as several mini-servers bolted together rather than one coherent API.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the count exceeds the comfortable range and is inflated by genuine redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded is a paid variant, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check, and six Polymarket tools could plausibly be consolidated. The server name promises a narrow SNCF data scope, yet 31 of 34 tools serve an unrelated universal data / prediction-market platform, making the count feel both bloated and mismatched to the server's stated identity.

Completeness3/5

For the dominant inferred domain (Pipeworx structured-data Q&A, research, and prediction markets), the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded answers, deep research, claim verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory are all present. However, relative to the server's stated name 'Data Sncf', the SNCF surface is minimal (search -> metadata -> query) with no update feeds, record-level fetch, or live railway status, and the two domains never connect. The orphaned single-purpose tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) further fragment the sense of a coherent domain.

Resources