Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Carlsbad

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: it retrieves specific financial/clinical data, handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is detailed yet well-organized, with trigger phrases upfront, then behavior, then data specifics. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return value (paired data + citation URIs), covers both entity types, notes sorting behavior, and even mentions edge-case handling (off-calendar fiscal years). This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 enriches parameter meaning by detailing what each type ('company' vs 'drug') actually fetches (10-K fields, FAERS counts) and how the output is sorted. It also gives concrete examples for values, adding practical semantics 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 is highly specific: it lists common trigger phrases, defines the resource (2-5 companies or drugs), and states the action (side-by-side comparison in one parallel call). It explicitly differentiates from sequential single-pack lookups, which is key among the sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also provides trigger examples and clarifies what data each type retrieves, making it clear when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Arcgis Carlsbad 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple 'compare' tools (compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Descriptions are verbose but often don't clearly distinguish when to use each, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase (polymarket_fill_risk), and arbitrary prefixes (scan_, generate_, etc.). No consistent verb_noun pattern; e.g., 'query_layer' vs 'search_datasets' vs 'layer_info' all involve data retrieval but use different patterns.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server purportedly focused on ArcGIS Carlsbad. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., polymarket betting, npm package scanning). The core ArcGIS functionality could be covered by 3-5 tools, but the server is bloated with Pipeworx utilities.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS portion lacks update/delete capabilities and is limited to querying. The Pipeworx tools cover a broad range of data sources but introduce many dependencies and meta-tools, creating a cluttered surface with dead ends (e.g., tools requiring paid accounts without fallback).

Resources