Skip to main content
Glama

Google_search_console

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), sorting by primary metric, and the efficiency claim of replacing 8–15 sequential lookups, which is useful beyond annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads query examples and key instructions. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value; could be slightly more structured but effective overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers data sources, sorting behavior, citation URIs, and performance benefit. It provides sufficient context for correct invocation without missing critical details.

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% (both parameters described). The description enriches understanding by giving concrete examples for 'type' (what data each pulls) and 'values' (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names), adding practical guidance 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It specifies distinct behaviors for company vs. drug types and contrasts with sequential single-pack lookups, making it unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly recommends preference over sequential lookups ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups') and provides example queries. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but clearly defines comparison context.

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

All Google_search_console 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

Most tools have distinct purposes within their own clusters, and the GSC tools are clearly separated. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the several Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) can be confused without reading each description closely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are broadly snake_case and readable, with some useful prefixes (gsc_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). But conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_compound (bet_research, entity_profile), and some are bare verbs (forget, recall), which prevents a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, but it is especially problematic given the server is named Google_search_console while only 4 of the 35 tools actually relate to Search Console. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/Polymarket research toolkit that would be far more coherent as its own server.

Completeness2/5

Relative to the stated Google Search Console purpose, the set is missing common operations such as submitting/removing sitemaps, requesting indexing, or managing URL inspections. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are extensive in their own domains but do not fill these gaps, leaving the GSC surface incomplete.

Resources