Skip to main content
Glama

Passive Aggression

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: specific data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return format including citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 triggers and purpose, well-structured with clear sections. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose; a minor tightening could improve conciseness. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, different data sources) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return format (paired data + citations), sorting behavior, and covers both company and drug use cases thoroughly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning: examples of tickers/CIKs for company, drug name formats, and explains how values are used. A small deduction because the schema already provides adequate definitions.

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 purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call. It lists multiple natural language triggers and explicitly distinguishes from sequential lookups, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (for comparisons) and when to prefer it over alternatives ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups'). It also explains key context for each entity type, guiding correct invocation.

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

All Passive Aggression 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the various data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) that share similar functionality with subtle differences. The detailed descriptions help but the boundaries are not always clear, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mix of patterns: some tools use consistent verb_noun (subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall) but others are inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile). The main data tools have a common prefix but diverge in style, and the presence of tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt adds further inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, the Polymarket tools). The inclusion of tangential tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt suggests scope creep. A typical well-scoped server would have 10-15 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data access and some auxiliary functions (memory, subscriptions, feedback), but there are notable gaps like user authentication and data visualization. The addition of an unrelated sentiment analysis tool makes the surface feel incomplete for a focused data server.

Resources