Skip to main content
Glama

Airtable

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are present, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it's a single parallel call, returns paired data with citation URIs, and details data sources per entity type. No contradiction.

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 moderately concise, front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly tighter (e.g., the explanation of fiscal year handling is useful but verbose).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources), the description covers the key aspects: input constraints, data sources, sort behavior, and output format (paired data with URIs). Lacks details on response structure but sufficient for most agents.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the behavior of each type ('company' pulls financial data, 'drug' pulls FAERS counts) and giving concrete examples for values.

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 uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'side-by-side comparison', and lists example queries, clearly distinguishing it from sequential lookups. It identifies the resource (companies/drugs) and the scope (2-5 entities).

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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and provides example queries. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., if only one entity needed).

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

All Airtable 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

The Airtable tools are distinct, but the set is dominated by a large Pipeworx research family with multiple near-identical entries (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool among the many data-lookup and research options, especially given the server is supposedly named Airtable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun snake_case (airtable_create_record, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), while others use domain-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for any single server's scope, and the mismatch is worse because the server is named Airtable yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Airtable. The rest form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory grab-bag, suggesting poor scoping and no clear purpose for the set as a whole.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Airtable domain, the surface is incomplete: records can be created, fetched, and listed, but there is no update_record or delete_record. For the broader Pipeworx/prediction-market domain the coverage is extensive but unfocused, and given the server's name the Airtable gap is glaring.

Resources