Skip to main content
Glama

Close Crm

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"]).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, 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?

Front-loaded with example queries, then details data sources and behaviors. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly but still effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and good annotation support, the description covers purpose, usage, data sources, edge cases (fiscal years), sorting, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). No output schema but description is sufficient.

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% but description adds meaning: explains what each type returns (revenue/net income/cash/debt for companies; adverse events/approvals/trials for drugs) and how to specify values (tickers, names). Provides examples 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 uses specific verbs ('compare', 'side-by-side comparison') and clearly identifies the resource (companies or drugs with specific data sources). It distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile by emphasizing multi-entity comparison in one call.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and provides example query patterns. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear and alternatives are implied by sibling tools.

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

All Close Crm 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.

Resources