Skip to main content
Glama

Dati It

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a name); recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. Only \"company\" supported today; person/place coming soon."New value: +"\"company\" or \"ticker\" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "ticker"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name."New value: +"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"), or company name (e.g., \"Moderna\") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match."
  2. 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 readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: USPTO soft-fail behavior, meaning of sources_used/sources_failed, and the expected-empty fda_products case. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs beyond structured hints.

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?

Dense, information-rich paragraph where every clause adds value, but it is a long continuous sentence that could be more scannable. Structure is acceptable for a complex tool, but not exemplary.

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 read-only, 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers all returned fields, source behavior, parameter handling, and expected edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents ticker/CIK/name shapes and SEC EDGAR resolution. The description adds useful example queries and the resolved_from/resolved_to nuance, but it mostly reinforces the schema rather than introducing entirely new parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific action and scope: builds a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call' and names the sources and return sections. It clearly differentiates entity_profile from siblings like resolve_entity or compare_entities by scope and multiplicity of sources.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use it: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Provides trigger phrases and edge-case expectations (private company returns resolved:false), which effectively guides selection.

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

All Dati It 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,529 tools; polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both find tradeable opportunities; discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery. The beta tool being an exact duplicate makes misselection highly likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most action tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, list_groups, resolve_entity, search_datasets, suggest_questions, validate_claim), but there is significant mixing with noun_noun (dataset_details, entity_profile, organization_details, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) and adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts). The Polymarket family is consistently prefixed, but overall the server mixes several conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools far exceeds the typically well-scoped range, and the server bundles what appear to be five separate concerns: Italian open data, Pipeworx universal query, entity/report utilities, prediction-market analytics, and meta/memory/subscription features. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence; discover_tools and suggest_questions), making the set feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The broad domain of structured data research and prediction-market edge is largely covered: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, arbitrage scans, fill-risk, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist—no direct tool to fetch raw CKAN resource URLs, no exhaustive list of all 5,529 tools, and no actual order execution on prediction markets—but these are workable around.

Resources