Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Echo

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc., and the description adds valuable behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URI generation. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-organized with trigger phrases first, then detailed behavior. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly without losing substance.

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, sorting, citation URIs), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, data retrieval details, output characteristics, and comparison with alternatives. No output schema, but the description sufficiently indicates what is returned.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the 'type' enum in terms of data sources and behavior, and provides concrete examples for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug). This goes beyond 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: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It provides specific trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'which is bigger', and distinguishes it from similar tools like 'entity_profile' by emphasizing its multi-entity comparison capability.

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 instructs to prefer this tool over sequential single-entity lookups when comparing entities, stating it 'replaces 8-15 sequential lookups'. This gives clear usage context and tells the agent when to choose 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 Epa Echo 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

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded form a tight cluster, and the beta variant is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. Several meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also overlap in discovery-oriented usage, so an agent must read carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase with underscores and mostly descriptive, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun tools like validate_claim and list_subscriptions sit alongside noun_phrase tools like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare verbs like remember and subscribe. It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the surface spans unrelated domains: EPA ECHO data, general Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility checks. For a server named 'Epa Echo', most tools feel out of scope and the collection seems like several separate servers merged together.

Completeness4/5

The EPA ECHO subset provides a solid facility-search, violations, compliance-history, and enforcement-action lifecycle. The broader Pipeworx surface also covers lookups, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor workaround-level gaps such as no dedicated ECHO permit/emissions detail tool.

Resources