Skip to main content
Glama

Shopify

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: pulls latest 10-K from SEC EDGAR/XBRL (with off-calendar handling), sorts results by primary metric, returns paired data with citation URIs, and replaces multiple sequential 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer but front-loaded with example user queries and structured with clear details. Every sentence adds value, and it's organized logically. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 high annotation coverage (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and full schema parameter descriptions, the description is very complete. It explains behavior for both entity types, sorting, citation URIs, and performance benefits, leaving no significant gaps.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that 'values' for company are tickers/CIKs and for drug are names, with examples. It also mentions sorting by primary metric, which provides context beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it does side-by-side comparison of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs) in a single call. It includes example user queries ('X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and specifies the data sources for each type, distinguishing it from sequential lookups.

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?

Explicitly instructs to always prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups, and provides context for when to use (comparison, ranking, head-to-head). While it doesn't state when not to use, the purpose is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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

All Shopify 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, especially the Pipeworx data retrieval tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). The Shopify-specific tools are distinct, but the overall set is a confusing mix of domains, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), others use underscores in various patterns (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). The Shopify tools use a shopify_ prefix, but the rest follow no uniform scheme, making it unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named 'Shopify'. Only 5 tools are Shopify-specific; the rest are general-purpose data tools (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, etc.). This severe scope mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate and overwhelming for the intended domain.

Completeness2/5

As a Shopify server, the tools cover only basic read operations (list/get products, orders, customers), missing crucial write operations (create, update, delete) and other Shopify features (webhooks, inventory, etc.). The general tools cover many domains but are not integrated into a coherent Shopify workflow.

Resources