Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Abbotsford

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent safety. The description adds rich behavioral detail: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS, FDA), specific metrics pulled for each type, handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 but information-dense and well organized, front-loading examples and use cases. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance (when to use, data sources, sorting, citations). Slight over-length could be trimmed, but it earns its space for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting, entity type behavior, fiscal year handling, and the efficiency benefit. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, this is a complete picture for the agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining what each type ('company' vs 'drug') yields in terms of data sources and metrics, which adds value beyond the schema. Minor gap: no additional disambiguation of value formats beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. Specific trigger phrases and resource types distinguish it from related single-entity tools like entity_profile.

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 states when to use the tool (comparison queries such as 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger', 'rank these companies') and says to always prefer it over sequential single-pack lookups. It could be stronger by naming a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All Arcgis Abbotsford 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all provide data lookup/research. The PolyMarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also creates boundary confusion despite varied signals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb phrases (query_layer, validate_claim), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, layer_info). Descriptions are readable overall, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated ArcGIS Abbotsford purpose. The set appears to be a generic Pipeworx data/prediction-market toolkit with only a few GIS-specific tools, making the count excessive for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS Abbotsford domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info cover GIS functionality, lacking update/delete/create operations or broader dataset management. For the actual Pipeworx domain, coverage is decent, but that does not match the server name.

Resources