Skip to main content
Glama

Gitignore

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description details data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, result sorting by primary metric, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). No contradictions 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 concise, fitting all key information in a single paragraph. It starts with trigger phrases, then purpose, then per-type details. Slight lack of structural formatting (e.g., bullets) but efficient overall.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers entity types, data sources, handling of fiscal years, result sorting, output format, and efficiency gains, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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 parameters are well-described. The description adds example values and entity-specific data context but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It provides trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y' and explicitly distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It gives context for when to use (comparing entities) and mentions efficiency (replaces 8-15 lookups), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Gitignore 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical right now, making them near-duplicates. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also heavily overlap, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx requires careful reading to know which to pick.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_templates, create_*, validate_claim). However, a few bare verbs break the pattern: compose, forget, recall, and remember.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named 'Gitignore' and only 3 of 34 tools relate to .gitignore templates. The other 31 tools form a completely unrelated data platform, making the count an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

As a data platform, the surface is broad but has notable gaps: citations return pipeworx:// URIs yet no fetch/read-by-URI tool exists, and subscriptions support subscribe/unsubscribe/list but not update. For the gitignore name, only basic template list/get/compose is present, with the rest irrelevant to the stated purpose.

Resources