Skip to main content
Glama

Orcid

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it pulls latest 10-K data for companies and FAERS trial data for drugs, handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the 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 front-loaded with example queries and core statement, then expands into data details. Though somewhat long, each sentence provides essential information with no unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description mentions return format (paired data + citation URIs) and covers data sources, sorting, and usage. Minor gaps around error handling are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by specifying what data each type ('company' vs 'drug') retrieves, exceeding the schema's basic 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?

Clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. Uses specific verbs like 'compare' and provides example query patterns. Differentiates from sequential single-entity 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over sequential single-entity lookups when comparing entities. Provides clear context for when to use (comparing multiple entities) and what data each type pulls. Implicitly tells users not to use for single-entity lookups.

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

All Orcid 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ORCID-specific tools (record, search, works, work) are reasonably distinct, but the set is dominated by unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, several of which overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed with no consistent pattern: nouns like 'record', 'work', 'works', and 'education' sit alongside snake_case verb phrases like 'search_within', 'validate_claim', and 'generate_llms_txt', plus proprietary 'ask_pipeworx' / 'pipeworx_feedback' names. While readable, the styles are inconsistent enough that an agent cannot predict tool names from the domain.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server scoped as 'Orcid': only roughly 7 tools (record, works, work, education, employment, search, search_within) actually relate to ORCID. The remaining ~30 tools cover prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and generic Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, which is a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness3/5

For read-only ORCID access, the surface covers full records, works, education, employment, and registry search, with semantic search over fetched records as a useful addition. However, it lacks other common ORCID activity types (funding, peer review, distinctions), profile metadata beyond summaries, and any create/update/delete lifecycle operations, leaving notable gaps for a server claiming to serve ORCID data.

Resources