Skip to main content
Glama

Jsonschema

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, but the description adds significant context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, metric sorting, and return format with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: trigger phrases, preference rule, data-source details, sorting behavior, and return format. It is slightly longer than ideal but well-organized and front-loaded with usage cues. No fluff, though a few phrases could be tightened.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: input types, data sources, sorting, output format (paired data + citation URIs), and efficiency rationale. Combined with strong annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both type and values described, but the description adds meaningful enrichment: explains what each enum value retrieves (10-K metrics vs. adverse-event counts) and provides input examples ("AAPL", "MSFT", "ozempic"). This adds value beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the essentials.

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 identifies the tool as a side-by-side comparator for 2–5 companies or drugs, with specific trigger phrases like "X vs Y" and "rank these companies." It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it replaces sequential lookups, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries and domain (company/drug) specifics. It directly states "ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups," naming the alternative behavior to avoid, and quantifies efficiency savings ("Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups").

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

All Jsonschema 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy the same entry-point role (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The Polymarket family is carefully described but still has heavily overlapping discovery/edge surfaces. Only validate_json_schema is unambiguous, and it has no related siblings to clarify its position.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb-first forms (discover_tools, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), noun-first forms (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Prefix conventions are inconsistent—ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes—and almost none of the names reflect the server name Jsonschema.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is already too many, but for a server named Jsonschema only one tool belongs to that domain; the rest form a broad data-research and prediction-market suite. This is an extreme scoping mismatch: the set is simultaneously oversized and almost entirely off-purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a JSON Schema server, the surface is essentially one operation: validate_json_schema. Common schema lifecycle operations—generation, parsing, conversion, ref resolution, linting—are missing, leaving most JSON Schema tasks impossible. The unrelated data-research tools are internally rich, but they do not complete the apparent domain.

Resources