Skip to main content
Glama

Vizier

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, lowering the bar. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing soft-failure of the USPTO PatentsView sunset, that an empty fda_products section is expected for small-molecule-only companies, that a private company returns resolved:false with a notes field, and that sources_used/sources_failed distinguish real no-data from bugs.

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 very dense single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with trigger phrases and the ALWAYS PREFER directive. Every sentence adds real information about sources, return fields, or edge cases, so there is no waste; however, a bulleted structure would improve scannability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: cik, company_name, resolved fields, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, federal_contracts, fda_products, hiring, news, LEI, and sources_used/failed. It also covers input edge cases and failure semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 adds meaningful examples (AAPL, 0000320193, Moderna), explains that type's two values are interchangeable, and details that company names resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match. It also clarifies resolved_from/resolved_to behavior for name inputs, far exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 trigger phrases and immediately states 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also contrasts itself with chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from alternative approaches.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and provides numerous example phrasings that should trigger this tool. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like resolve_entity or compare_entities as alternatives in specific conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Vizier 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, and validate_claim all route questions or discovery; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence duplicate the same probe; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all scan prediction markets. The descriptions are detailed, but the set itself gives agents too many overlapping entry points to choose from.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are almost universally snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). There are minor deviations like bare nouns 'catalogs' and 'object', and 'entity_profile' is noun_noun, but the overall pattern is recognizable and consistent enough.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is beyond the 25+ 'too many' threshold and the server bundles five or six distinct domains (astronomy, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and web utilities). While each subdomain has its own scope, the total count makes the tool surface feel like a kitchen sink rather than a coherent, well-scoped server.

Completeness3/5

Each subdomain has decent coverage: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and the data cluster has ask/grounded/deep/validate/profile/compare variants. However, the overall domain is fragmented, there is no subscription update mechanism, and the advertised pipeworx:// citation URIs rely on MCP resources rather than a tool—leaving some workflows with dead ends.

Resources