Skip to main content
Glama

Linkedin Humblebrag

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), edge-case handling (off-calendar fiscal years for AAPL and NVDA), sorting behavior by primary metric, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and adds critical behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value—trigger phrases, scope, data sources, sorting, output, and efficiency gain. It is front-loaded with usage examples and avoids verbosity. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (paired data + citation URIs) and covers all complexity: entity types, count limits, data source specifics, fiscal year handling, and output ordering. The agent has all necessary information for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds depth by explaining what each 'type' value pulls (company: financial metrics from 10-K; drug: FAERS counts, FDA approvals, trial counts) and provides concrete examples for the 'values' parameter (e.g., tickers vs drug names). This significantly enhances schema meaning.

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 function: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups and by listing trigger phrases for comparison queries.

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 usage triggers (e.g., 'Compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and a strong directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' This gives the agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool rather than alternatives.

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

All Linkedin Humblebrag 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinctly named and the descriptions are unusually specific, but the set contains overlapping families: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data, and the beta variant is currently an exact duplicate. The entity/company lookup, AI-visibility, and Polymarket clusters also require reading the long descriptions to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with useful prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, and pipeworx_. However the macro pattern is mixed: many are verb-first (compare_entities, resolve_entity), many are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker, recent_alerts), and one puts the verb last (linkedin_humblebrag_generate).

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent name and stated LinkedIn-humblebrag purpose are served by exactly one tool. Even viewed as a general Pipeworx/research utility, the surface is bloated: duplicate ask variants, multiple meta-tools, and a sprawling prediction-market family push the count well past the 25-tool threshold.

Completeness2/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only generation exists, with no way to list, edit, delete, publish, or manage LinkedIn-humblebrag posts. The de facto Pipeworx research domain is much better covered, but the overall set has serious dead ends because the one LinkedIn tool is isolated and the core tools are oriented toward a different, unrelated workflow.

Resources