Skip to main content
Glama

Data Santaclara

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a name); recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. Only \"company\" supported today; person/place coming soon."New value: +"\"company\" or \"ticker\" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "ticker"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name."New value: +"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"), or company name (e.g., \"Moderna\") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description goes well beyond that by explaining the parallel fan-out, the semantics of sources_used and sources_failed, resolved status behavior for private companies, and the resolved_from/resolved_to fields. This is substantial behavioral context not inferable from annotations.

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 long and dense, but nearly every sentence earns its place by adding operational or behavioral detail. It front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance. Some redundancy with the schema remains, which keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the agent can expect to receive: section overviews, filing URIs, fundamentals, source success/failure indicators, and edge-case behavior for private companies. The agent can call this tool with confidence about both invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description largely repeats what the schema states, though it adds context about name resolution and private-company output behavior. This is useful collateral but not a major independent contribution to parameter semantics.

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's purpose: producing a full cross-source profile of a US public company in one parallel call. It uses concrete examples, names the data sources it fans out to, and distinguishes itself from single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups.

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?

Explicitly says when to prefer this tool ('ALWAYS PREFER' when the user asks for a holistic view) and warns against chaining single-pack lookups instead. It also specifies accepted input forms and how private companies are handled, giving agents clear decision criteria.

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

All Data Santaclara 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same 5,798-tool catalog and can return similar evidence-backed answers. Additionally, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all circle prediction-market edge detection, creating boundary ambiguity despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and consistent snake_case is used throughout. However, some names are vague and unclear (query, metadata, recall, forget, datasets), and the ask_pipeworx family is not clearly versioned in naming.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that is conceptually a data-access gateway plus a few meta utilities. The count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate research modes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and an extensive prediction-market subfamily that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its main domains well: entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, grounded Q&A, and data discovery all exist. Minor gaps include no obvious tool for general web search or full-text legal records, and the subscription/alert system lacks an update-subscription tool, but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources