Skip to main content
Glama

dnd5e

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. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it pulls specific SEC EDGAR/XBRL data for companies and FAERS data for drugs, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. This goes well beyond the safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with user-matching trigger phrases and gets to the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds essential detail (type-specific data sources, sorting, output format, efficiency gain) without redundancy. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, sorting behavior, citation output) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what data is returned, how results are ordered, and how many sequential calls it replaces. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning by explaining what type='company' and type='drug' actually retrieve (10-K financials vs. adverse-event counts, etc.). It also provides concrete examples of valid values, exceeding the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the verb 'compare' and the resource '2–5 companies or drugs'. It also includes trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies', making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile by emphasizing parallel comparison in a single call.

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 instructs 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also describes the alternatives it replaces (sequential lookups) and provides concrete examples of queries that should trigger this tool.

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

All dnd5e 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the three ask_pipeworx variants, the memory tools (remember/recall/forget), and the subscription management tools. Additionally, the D&D tools are mixed with a large set of unrelated tools, causing confusion between domains.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_class, list_spells), while others use descriptive noun phrases (e.g., ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no clear, predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on D&D 5e. The inclusion of many unrelated tools from the Pipeworx ecosystem makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for the intended domain.

Completeness1/5

For the D&D 5e domain, only 4 tools exist (get_class, get_monster, get_spell, list_spells), which is severely incomplete. The remaining tools cover other domains, but they do not serve the server's primary purpose, leaving obvious gaps in functionality.

Resources