Skip to main content
Glama

Nypl

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a name); recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it fans out across multiple sources, returns a structured payload with URIs, and notes that the patents API will sunset May 2025 and will 'soft-fail until reactivated.' Also reveals the GDELT→GNews fallback chain. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value: trigger phrases, core purpose, usage preference, output breakdown, API caveats, and input restrictions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with organic language examples, then systematic return fields, and ends with input disambiguation. No filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return payload: cik, company_name, recent_filings with pipeworx URIs, fundamentals (specific fields), patents, news fallback, and LEI. It also covers the parallel-call nature, the unsupported name input, and the resolve_entity prerequisite. This is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already well-described. The description's param-related text ('Pass ticker AAPL or zero-padded CIK 0000320193') mirrors the schema descriptions without adding new semantics. It does add real-world example context but doesn't exceed what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with explicit user-intent examples ("Tell me about X", "company profile for Microsoft") and a direct statement: "full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it should be preferred over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups and by referencing resolve_entity for name-only 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 when-to-use guidance: use when the user asks for a holistic view ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack lookups'). It also gives a clear exclusion: 'names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name)', directly naming the alternative sibling tool.

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

All Nypl 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. A few overlaps exist (multiple Polymarket analysis tools), but descriptions sufficiently resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent, mixing descriptive phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges) with verb-object patterns (generate_llms_txt, search). No strong convention is followed, and the 'polymarket_' prefix is applied to some betting tools but not others.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but not extreme. However, the scope is too broad for a single server, covering data queries, betting, memory, NYPL, and more, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The domain is unclear due to mixed tools, but within the NYPL subset there are clear gaps (only search and item, no CRUD). For the other domains, coverage is uneven and lacks clear lifecycle completeness.

Resources