Skip to main content
Glama

Ecosystems

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing fan-out behavior, per-source soft-fail semantics (USPTO PatentsView sunset May 2025), expected-empty semantics (fda_products with only small-molecule drugs is 'expected, not a failure'), fallback chains (GDELT→GNews), the sources_used/sources_failed contract ('an empty section is a real no data, not a bug'), and the private-company path returning resolved:false with an explicit notes line instead of a bare failure. Little is left to surprise.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with trigger phrases and core purpose, and nearly every sentence carries real content, so it is not padded. However, it is one dense unbroken paragraph with semicolon chains and it duplicates the ticker/CIK/name and type-interchangeability details already present in the input schema, making it notably longer and harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 high-complexity tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does exhaustively: it enumerates every return section (cik, company_name, recent_filings with pipeworx URIs and the 5-item limit, fundamentals fields, patents, federal_contracts, fda_products, hiring, news, LEI) plus input variants and error behaviors. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its results 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 both params are already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: trigger-phrase exemplars mapping natural-language utterances to `value`, the resolved_from/resolved_to outcome when `value` is a name, and the private-company resolution behavior. It does restate the ticker/CIK/name formats the schema already covers, which holds it back from a 5.

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?

Opens with concrete trigger phrases and a specific verb+resource: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It names the exact fan-out sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, USAspending, Purple Book, DOL LCA, GDELT→GNews, GLEIF) and scopes itself to US public companies, while the 'person/place coming soon' note draws a clear boundary against sibling tools like compare_entities and resolve_entity.

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?

Gives an explicit routing directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' The trigger-phrase list ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme', 'brief me on Tesla') teaches an agent to recognize the invocation intent, and the note that non-company entities are out of scope supplies the when-not condition.

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

All Ecosystems 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools form tight clusters that are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in routing, and the six polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all operate on prediction markets with overlapping names and purposes. While each has a distinct job, an agent will need to read descriptions very carefully to pick the right one, especially when many are similar.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed throughout the set: many tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are also noun_noun (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). No consistent pattern emerges, making tool names harder to predict and remember.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this server is heavy and tries to serve many unrelated domains—data research, prediction markets, package registries, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. The prediction-markets cluster alone accounts for six highly specialized tools that could be consolidated. The scope feels bloated rather than focused, which will overwhelm agents exploring the toolset.

Completeness4/5

Each domain within the server has solid coverage: data lookups offer stable, beta, grounded, and deep-research variants; entity analysis has profile, compare, changes, and resolve; subscriptions support create/list/delete/alert-read; memory has set/get/list/delete. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct package search by keyword, no tool to update a subscription), but the major workflows are covered and there are no dead ends.

Resources