Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tallahassee

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?

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as handling off-calendar fiscal years, sorting results by primary metric, and returning citation URIs. Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior, with no contradictions.

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 dense but efficient, with front-loaded example queries. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured. No redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity (two entity types, up to 5 entities, specific financial data), the description covers what the tool does, what data is returned, sorting behavior, and citation links. Without an output schema, it adequately describes return values.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'values' expects tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names for drugs, and that 'type' controls the data sources. This goes beyond the schema's enum and array 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 states the tool compares 2-5 companies or drugs side-by-side, pulling specific financial or adverse-event data. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile by explicitly noting it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups.

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 provides strong guidance to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and includes example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though context implies alternatives for single entity lookups.

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

All Arcgis Tallahassee 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

Multiple tools are near-duplicates or strongly overlapping: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are only mode/version variants, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the Polymarket tools with each other. An agent would frequently need a deep read of the descriptions to know which one is truly appropriate.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is almost entirely snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern, e.g. query_layer, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, compare_entities. Minor deviations like entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, but the overall pattern is still recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server branded 'Arcgis Tallahassee' is far too many, especially since only a handful of them are GIS-related. The rest constitute a large general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, which at this tool count becomes unwieldy and will increase an agent's selection failure rate.

Completeness3/5

The core read-only GIS flow is covered (search_datasets → layer_info → query_layer), and the Pipeworx side is broad. However, there are notable gaps: no ArcGIS service management, no layer/feature editing, no spatial operations, and no deeper GIS functions. Because the server's stated purpose is ArcGIS-focused, the overall surface is only partially complete relative to that domain.

Resources