Skip to main content
Glama

Discogs

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details: for company pulls 10-K data with off-calendar handling, for drug pulls FAERS/FDA/trial counts, sorted by primary metric, returns paired data with 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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but efficient, front-loading core purpose and usage. It packs significant detail (data sources, sorting, output format) without redundancy, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return format (paired data, citation URIs). Covers both entity types, parameters, and edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with basic descriptions. Description enriches by specifying entity types (company/drug) with concrete examples (tickers/CIKs, drug names) and constraints (min 2, max 5). This adds meaningful context 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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with clear examples of natural language queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile by emphasizing multi-entity comparison.

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 advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, providing clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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

All Discogs 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
Disambiguation1/5

There is severe overlap among tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve discovery/research purposes. The Discogs-specific tools are distinct, but the large number of redundant Pipeworx tools makes it impossible to tell which one to pick.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Discogs tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (get_artist, get_label, get_master, get_release), but the majority of the set uses inconsistent, domain-specific names (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No single naming convention is applied across the server.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the server is massively over-provisioned for a Discogs-focused API. Most tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges, SEC lookups) have nothing to do with Discogs and belong to a separate service. The Discogs surface alone could be served by ~6 tools (search, get_artist, get_label, get_master, get_release, search_within), so the count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness3/5

For the Discogs domain, the core entities (artist, label, master, release) and full-text search are present, plus semantic search inside records. However, there are gaps like user collections, wantlists, marketplace, and discogs-specific filters beyond format/country. The presence of many unrelated tools does not directly hurt domain coverage, but the Discogs surface is not exhaustive.

Resources