Skip to main content
Glama

Owasp

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. Only \"company\" supported today; person/place coming soon."New value: +"\"company\" or \"ticker\" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "ticker"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name."New value: +"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"), or company name (e.g., \"Moderna\") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel fan-out, soft-fail for the sunsetting USPTO API, GDELT→GNews fallback, 'empty section means no data, not a bug', and private-company resolved:false behavior. This goes far beyond what annotations alone reveal.

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 purpose is front-loaded with examples, and every sentence carries useful operational detail. However, it is one very dense, long paragraph; breaking the output-section and behavioral notes into a structured layout would make it easier to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics itself. It enumerates each returned section, explains expected empty results, documents fallbacks and failures, and covers all accepted input shapes — nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, Moderna), zero-padded CIK requirement, name resolution via SEC EDGAR, the interchangeability of 'company' and 'ticker', and the private-company fallback behavior.

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 job: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It supplies numerous concrete example phrasings, names the exact resource types (SEC, XBRL, patents, contracts, etc.), and distinguishes itself from chaining 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool 'when the user asks for a holistic view' and to prefer it over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups. It does not, however, give explicit when-not-to-use guidance for closely related siblings such as resolve_entity or compare_entities.

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

All Owasp 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, especially the Pipeworx data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent may still struggle to choose the correct one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Some deviations exist (e.g., entity_profile, cheat_sheet) but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Owasp', as only 4 are directly OWASP-related (asvs_chapters, asvs_requirements, cheat_sheet, top10). The remaining 30 tools are for general data querying and betting, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The OWASP domain is partially covered with ASVS requirements, cheat sheets, and Top 10 lists. However, notable gaps exist, such as the OWASP Testing Guide, Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM), or risk assessment tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but not relevant to OWASP.

Resources