Skip to main content
Glama

Calendly

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds rich behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise yet packed with essential information. It front-loads example queries, then provides clear structure for each entity type, without redundant or filler content.

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?

Input is fully described. The description mentions 'paired data' and citation URIs, but the exact structure of the return value is not detailed. Given no output schema, a slightly more precise specification would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions. The tool description adds further meaning, clarifying data pulled per type and format of values (ticker/CIK vs. drug names), enhancing agent understanding 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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs, uses specific verbs ('compare'), and differentiates from sequential single lookups by recommending preference over them.

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 provides explicit guidance with example queries and states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' clearly indicating 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 Calendly 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 research tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread form a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries. The few Calendly tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by duplicative families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use snake_case and a noun-based pattern (e.g. polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and several follow verb_noun (list_event_types, list_scheduled_events, resolve_entity). But there are standalone verbs (forget, recall, subscribe) and inconsistent verb styles (ask_ vs list_ vs scan_), so the pattern is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named Calendly: only 5 tools relate to Calendly events and invitees, while 31 tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research platform. The count is bloated by a second domain bolted onto the server, making the surface hard to navigate for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Calendly domain implied by the server name, the surface is missing core operations: there is no create/update/cancel/delete event, no cancel or reschedule flow, no invitee management beyond listing, and no event-type creation or editing. The Pipeworx side is broader, but even it has gaps like no bulk data export or direct raw-tool invocation.

Resources