Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc Regulations

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses fan-out across multiple upstream APIs, a GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail behavior, and the semantics of empty sections ('an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug'). This gives the agent a realistic model of partial and failure-prone data.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with examples and the core 'full cross-source profile in ONE parallel call' statement, and every subsequent clause carries information about sources, return fields, failure semantics, or accepted inputs. The length is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a de facto return contract: it enumerates each returned section (cik, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, etc.) and explains the meaning of sources_used/sources_failed. It also covers name resolution, ticker/CIK forms, private-company behavior, and data-specific caveats, so an agent can invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates the schema text for `type` and `value` (same examples AAPL/0000320193/Moderna, same interchangeability note). It adds the global scope of 'US public company' but that is tool-level context, not new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with concrete user query patterns and an explicit statement: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' This names the verb (profile), resource (US public company), and scope (cross-source), and clearly separates it 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?

It explicitly instructs to 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view,' giving a clear decision rule. It also documents edge cases (private companies return resolved:false, no data is reported via sources_failed), which tells an agent what to expect and when not to treat output as an error.

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

All Fcc Regulations 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 tool clusters have poorly defined boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, the five polymarket tools all orbit 'find/validate trading edges', and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory and subscription tools are distinct, but the core query/edge clusters would cause frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed across the set: the ask_pipeworx* family uses verb+product, the polymarket_* family uses domain-prefixed nouns, fcc_regulation and fcc_regulations_search differ in singular/plural and lack a verb, and tools like discover_tools, entity_profile, and generate_llms_txt each follow different patterns. No single predictable convention holds across the server.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy on its own, but the count is especially inappropriate given the server is named 'Fcc Regulations': only 2 of the 33 tools actually serve FCC regulatory text, while the other 31 tools belong to a general-purpose Pipeworx data-query platform. The set is far too broad for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the stated FCC-regulations purpose, the two relevant tools cover search and full-text retrieval, but there is no change tracking, no notification of rule updates, no historical/version comparison, and no adjacent FCC filings/licensing data despite the server name implying broader FCC coverage. The extra 31 unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so an agent expecting FCC completeness would hit dead ends.

Resources