Skip to main content
Glama

Mitre Cwe

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations that indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds context about data freshness (10-K, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results, and 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 moderately long but front-loaded with common query patterns. While some repetition (e.g., listing multiple example phrases) exists, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but remains effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and covers both entity types thoroughly. For a comparison tool with moderate complexity, this is comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds meaningful extra context: for 'type' it specifies the data sources and metrics (revenue, net income, etc. vs adverse-event counts), and for 'values' it provides concrete examples (tickers/CIKs vs drug names). This exceeds basic schema descriptions.

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 performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 entities (companies or drugs) and distinguishes it from sequential single-pack lookups. Examples like 'Compare X and Y' and 'head to head' make the purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear guidance on when to use. It also details what each entity type (company/drug) retrieves and explains the data sources.

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

All Mitre Cwe 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Only 7 of 38 tools are specific to CWE (weakness, children, parents, etc.), while the rest are generic data query, prediction market, and utility tools. This creates massive overlap and confusion: an agent looking for CWE data will encounter many unrelated tools with similar generic names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, etc.

Naming Consistency2/5

CWE-specific tools use a consistent noun pattern (weakness, children, parents, etc.), but the remaining tools mix snake_case, camelCase, and no clear pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, generate_llms_txt). The overall naming is inconsistent.

Tool Count1/5

38 tools is far too many for a CWE server. The vast majority are unrelated to CWE, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused. A concise set of ~5-10 CWE-specific tools would be appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The CWE-specific tools (weakness, category, view, children, parents, descendants, relationship) cover the main use cases for querying the CWE database. However, the server also includes many unrelated tools that dilute its purpose, making it feel incomplete for someone strictly needing CWE data.

Resources