Skip to main content
Glama

Noaa Spc

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, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: fanning out across SEC, XBRL, patents, contracts, FDA, DOL, news, GLEIF; soft-failing for the patents API; empty sections as real 'no data'; and resolved:false for private companies. This goes far beyond the annotations and clarifies failure semantics.

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 and dense, but it is appropriately sized for a complex tool with no output schema and many return sections. It is front-loaded with purpose and use guidance before diving into details. A minor structural improvement would be bulletizing the return fields, but nearly every sentence adds necessary information.

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, the absence of an output schema, and the large sibling list, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input forms, resolution behavior, source fan-out, per-section return fields, fallback behavior, expected empty sections, and private-company handling. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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 the description still adds meaning beyond it: 'type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably,' value can be a ticker, zero-padded CIK, or company name, and names resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match. It also connects parameter choices to the output fields resolved_from/resolved_to, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with concrete user queries and a specific verb: 'Tell me about X' / 'research Acme' / 'brief me on Tesla' — 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It names the resource and distinguishes itself from 'chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups,' so an agent can immediately tell this from generic research tools.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view,' giving a clear selection rule and alternative. It also explains behavior for private companies, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compare_entities or resolve_entity, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use statement.

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

All Noaa Spc 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
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and there are six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research for the same prediction-market domain. AI visibility and company profile tools also overlap, making selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent formatting, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim) while many are noun-first (convective_outlook, polymarket_edges, entity_profile) or adjective-noun (recent_alerts, watches_active). It's readable but not a uniform verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25-tool threshold, and more importantly the set is bloated with a general-purpose research platform when the server is named Noaa Spc. Only 4 tools actually serve the SPC domain, so the count is inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the dominant Pipeworx domain, the surface is fairly broad (query, compare, validate, subscribe, remember), but there are notable gaps: no update for subscriptions, no generic weather beyond SPC, and no direct list of all available sources. For the SPC purpose implied by the name, only 4 of 35 tools exist, so coverage is severely skewed.

Resources