Skip to main content
Glama

Intercom

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs. 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-structured, front-loading the purpose with example queries, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, so it remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, data sources, constraints, and output structure. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a 2-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with both parameters described. Description enhances meaning: explains that 'company' type pulls latest 10-K data and 'drug' type pulls FAERS data, and gives concrete examples for the 'values' parameter (e.g., tickers/CIKs, drug names).

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 uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'rank', and 'head to head', and provides example user queries. It clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs, distinguishing it from single-entity tools like entity_profile.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups for comparisons, and explains data sources for each type. Does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for more than 5 entities), but the schema constraints and mention of alternatives provide implicit guidance.

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

All Intercom 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog with unclear boundaries. Polymarket tools also overlap (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are nearly the same operation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). However, the set mixes two distinct naming families — ic_* for Intercom tools and pipeworx/* for the rest — and includes ambiguous generic names like remember/recall/forget that don't visually connect to the rest.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far more than needed for an Intercom-focused server; the vast majority have nothing to do with Intercom and instead cover a sprawling Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, and memory/subscription toolkit. The count alone is in the 'too many' range, and the scope mismatch makes it feel even more inflated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Intercom, the surface is severely incomplete: only read/list/search operations exist for contacts and conversations, with no create, update, delete, send-message, or company-detail operations. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are fairly broad, but they don't compensate for the missing Intercom lifecycle coverage that the server name promises.

Resources