Skip to main content
Glama

The Graph

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar for the description is to add context beyond those flags — and it does extensively: fan-out across nine sources, soft-fail behavior for the USPTO PatentsView sunset, the nuanced 'a company with only small-molecule drugs shows none — expected, not a failure' clarification, sources_used/sources_failed semantics ('an empty section is a real no data'), and resolved:false with notes for private companies. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The front is strong — the query-pattern opener earns its place — and nearly every sentence carries real information. But the body is a dense single wall of text with no line breaks or visual structure, mixing return payload details, expected-empty semantics, and edge cases into one long flow. It is comprehensive but not concise; the content is valuable enough to avoid a 2, yet the lack of formatting hurts scannability for an agent.

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?

For a tool that fans out to over nine external sources with no output schema to lean on, the description is exceptionally complete. It documents every section of the return payload (cik, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, federal_contracts, fda_products, hiring, news, LEI), covers expected-empty and soft-fail edge cases, and clarifies sources_used/sources_failed. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results, with no structured output schema to compensate for gaps.

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% — both `type` and `value` are fully described in the schema, including the interchangeable behavior of 'company'/'ticker' and the three accepted value shapes. The description largely restates what the schema already says (EDGAR name resolution appears in both) and adds only minor flavor ('person/place coming soon'). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct; the description adds no meaningful parameter information 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?

The description opens with concrete user phrasings ("Tell me about X" / "research Acme") followed by a crisp statement: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' Verb, resource, and scope are all explicit, and the 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' line differentiates it from the many sibling tools that would otherwise seem overlapping (deep_research, compare_entities, resolve_entity).

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack... when the user asks for a holistic view' instruction is an explicit routing rule that tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool. It also states the exclusion condition (private companies return resolved:false). However, it never names sibling alternatives like compare_entities or resolve_entity and says when to use those instead, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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

All The Graph 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx plus the many polymarket_* tools have adjacent intents that are easy to confuse. scan_competitor_ai_presence also directly wraps ai_visibility_check, so an agent can easily select the wrong tool for the same task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-first (query_subgraph, introspect_schema, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The repeated prefixes help, but there is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, this exceeds a reasonable single-server footprint, and the scope sprawls across data routing, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm dependencies, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Many tools feel like separate mini-applications rather than one coherent toolkit for The Graph.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market side is well covered with lookup, grounded answers, research, comparison, profiles, claims, subscriptions, and memory. However, the server's apparent namesake, The Graph, is thin: only query_subgraph and introspect_schema exist, with no subgraph discovery, status, or management tools.

Resources