Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: source fan-out, soft-fail behavior for USPTO, expected empty FDA section for small-molecule-only companies, resolved:false for private companies, and explicit 'sources_used/sources_failed' semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is long but densely informative and front-loaded with trigger phrases and the core purpose. It earns most of its length by detailing output sections and failure semantics; there is minor redundancy between the source fan-out list and the later per-section breakdown, but no real fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, contracts, FDA products, hiring, news, LEI, and the sources_used/sources_failed semantics. It also covers edge cases like private companies and empty sections, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about tickers, zero-padded CIKs, company names, and the interchangeable type field. It adds some helpful reaffirmation and output behavior for unresolvable names, but not much new input-parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it produces a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It is clearly distinct from single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like compare_entities or resolve_entity, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives for comparison, simple resolution, or open-ended deep research.

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

All F1 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed 'use when' guidance and the polymarket/entity clusters are distinguishable, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research sit close together. Many other tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research vs polymarket_edges) require careful reading to keep separate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Consistent snake_case and recognizable subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, get_*) keep names readable. However the overall set mixes verb_noun (get_schedule, resolve_entity), bare verbs (remember, forget), noun phrases (recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and compound noun names (bet_research, polymarket_fill_risk), so there is no single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and spans many unrelated concerns: F1 data, universal data lookup, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility. While a broad data platform can justify a large surface, the mix of one-off and meta tools makes this feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a server named F1 the surface is thin: it covers schedule, driver profiles, race results, and driver standings but lacks constructor standings, qualifying, team/circuit data, and a driver list. The surrounding Pipeworx tools provide depth in other domains, but they do not fill the F1-specific gaps.

Resources