Skip to main content
Glama

Dblp

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral details: handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, returns paired data with citation URIs, and specifies data sources. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: trigger phrases, behavioral notes, data sources, and efficiency claims. No redundant information, well front-loaded with usage examples. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, data retrieval, sorting, output characteristics, and efficiency. Without an output schema, it adequately describes return values as 'paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs'.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: explains 'company' vs 'drug' behaviors, provides examples of valid values (tickers, drug names), and clarifies constraints (2-5 items, max 5). This enriches the schema 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's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs'. It includes trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y' and specifies the data sources (SEC filings, FAERS, clinical trials), differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 states when to use: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities'. Provides examples of user queries and notes that the tool replaces 8-15 sequential lookups, guiding the agent to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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

All Dblp 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in general purpose—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all retrieve factual data—though their descriptions draw clear mode distinctions. The Polymarket family is similarly dense but each member has a distinct role. An agent must read carefully to pick the right one, but the boundaries are mostly decipherable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow snake_case verb_noun or domain_noun patterns (search_publications, resolve_entity, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx). Minor exceptions like the bare verbs recall and forget break the pattern slightly, and mixed prefixes (pipeworx_, ask_, search_) are still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is heavy, but the deeper problem is scope mismatch: the server is named Dblp yet only 3 of 34 tools (search_authors, search_publications, search_venues) relate to DBLP. The remaining 31 tools form a broad general-purpose data platform that dwarfs and obscures the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a DBLP server, the surface is minimal: only search operations exist, with no record fetch-by-id, citation metrics, or author profile detail beyond what search returns. The bulk of the toolset addresses unrelated domains, leaving the actual DBLP workflow thin and incomplete.

Resources