Skip to main content
Glama

Ca Procurement

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. 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 informative but slightly verbose, especially the opening list of synonyms. However, each sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose, usage preference, type-specific details, output format.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (paired data + citation URIs). It covers both entity types comprehensively, including edge cases like off-calendar fiscal years. The tool's complexity (2-5 entities, multiple data sources) is well addressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameter meaning. For 'type', it explains the different data sources and metrics. For 'values', it specifies tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names, with explicit min/max count guidance.

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 provides side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific verb phrases like 'compare', 'rank', 'head-to-head'. It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, highlighting its unique value.

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 sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing strong usage guidance. It also explains when to use type='company' vs. type='drug', but could better exclude cases where this tool is not appropriate.

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

All Ca Procurement 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set has severe overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) overlap heavily in finding betting opportunities. An agent would struggle to select among these without deep familiarity, especially when ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical.

Naming Consistency2/5

Individual families are internally consistent (ca_procurement_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the server as a whole mixes domain-prefixed snake_case, bare verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). More importantly, the vast majority of tool names have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Ca Procurement' identity, so the naming fails to signal a coherent tool set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and over 85% of them (31 tools) are unrelated to California procurement—they cover general data lookup, prediction markets, npm packages, and memory storage. A scoped CA procurement server would reasonably have 5–8 tools; this is a general-purpose data platform wearing a procurement label.

Completeness3/5

The five relevant ca_procurement_* tools cover the main read-side query patterns well: award search, commodity rankings, department profiles, supplier aggregation, and top suppliers. However, the surface lacks contract/award detail retrieval by ID, solicitation or RFP search, and any vendor registration or contract lifecycle data, leaving notable gaps for a procurement-focused tool set.

Resources