Skip to main content
Glama

Pipedrive

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and inclusion of citation URIs. This fully discloses what the agent can expect beyond annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and flows logically from use case to provider. It is dense but every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. The single-paragraph format is easy to scan while retaining all essential details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and both modes. It covers the key edge case of off-calendar fiscal years. Combined with annotations and schema, it provides full context for safe invocation.

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?

Schema already documents type and values well, but description enriches them with concrete examples (AAPL/MSFT, ozempic/mounjaro), entity type-specific meaning (company pulls 10-K metrics, drug pulls FAERS counts), and the 2–5 limit context. This clearly goes beyond the schema's basic field 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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call, with clear trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups and sibling tools by emphasizing parallel comparison.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and contextual trigger phrases. It also states what each type (company/drug) does and notes it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups, making the choice obvious.

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

All Pipedrive 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and entity_profile, compare_entities, and deep_research all perform multi-source lookups. An agent would struggle to distinguish between them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx), lowercase (deep_research), and prefixed patterns (pipedrive_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). No unified verb_noun pattern exists across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is too high for a server named Pipedrive, which suggests a CRM focus. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., prediction market, weather, economic data), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipedrive subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving basic CRUD incomplete. However, the broader data lookup tools cover a wide range of domains (financials, drugs, patents), so overall coverage is moderate but not fully coherent with the server name.

Resources