Skip to main content
Glama

Hunter

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds: parallel call handles off-calendar fiscal years, results sorted by primary metric, returns citation URIs, replaces many lookups. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with trigger phrases, then concise details. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 only 2 params and no output schema, description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and what to expect. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning: for type it explains company vs drug data sources, for values it provides examples and constraints. Goes 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 includes explicit trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y', distinguishing it from siblings like entity_profile.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and examples of when to use (e.g., 'which is bigger'). Also details what each type returns, aiding correct invocation.

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

All Hunter 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have genuinely blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,743-tool catalog, and the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on 'should I bet / where is the edge'. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent would still struggle to pick correctly among near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is uniformly snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools, validate_claim) mixes with noun_noun (domain_search, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_changes), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Readable, but patternless.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is scope incoherence: a server named 'Hunter' dedicates only 3 of 34 tools to Hunter.io email lookup while the remaining 31 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research/prediction-market platform. The count is not earned by a single coherent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research core is quite thorough: entity resolution, single-lookup, grounded answers, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, semantic search-within-records, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory form a full research lifecycle. However, the domain is a grab-bag spanning email finding, npm dependency checking, prediction markets, and data research, and the three Hunter.io tools that match the server name are only a thin fragment of the surface.

Resources