Skip to main content
Glama

Linear

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"]).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: for companies, it pulls latest 10-K data from SEC EDGAR with proper fiscal year handling; for drugs, it pulls FAERS, FDA approval counts, and trial counts. It also states results are sorted by primary metric and returns citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph but contains all essential information efficiently. It uses imperative statements and examples. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall it is concise and well-front-loaded.

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, distinct data sources, sorting, citation URIs), the description covers all key aspects. It mentions replacing 8-15 lookups, and although there is no output schema, it describes the return format adequately.

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 clear descriptions. The description goes beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., tickers like 'AAPL', drug names like 'ozempic') and explaining the data pulled for each entity type, adding significant value.

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 in one parallel call. It lists various natural language triggers ('compare', 'vs', 'rank') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack 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?

The description explicitly advises to always prefer this tool over sequential lookups when comparing entities. It also specifies the entity types (company, drug) and the data sources for each, giving clear context on when 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 Linear 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., Polymarket tools are well-separated). However, a few tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and suggest_questions could cause minor confusion, as they all deal with querying data.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools from the same service use consistent prefixes (linear_, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall naming style is mixed: some are verb_noun (linear_create_issue), some are noun_verb (bet_research), and some are single words (remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server covers a broad range of functionality (data query, prediction markets, memory, etc.). While not excessive, the count is on the higher side, and the server name 'Linear' suggests a narrower focus, which may mislead expectations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core data querying, research, entity profiles, prediction market analysis, and memory operations comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited Linear CRUD), but the overall surface feels complete for its intended use as a data assistant.

Resources