Skip to main content
Glama

Rdap

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are already rich (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but description adds significant behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and 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?

Front-loaded with trigger examples, every sentence adds value. Slightly dense with many details packed into one paragraph, but still efficient and scannable. No redundancy.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers behavior, data sources, sorting logic, and even mentions citation URIs. Agent has all necessary information to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, yet description adds meaningful detail: explains what 'type' values map to (company pulls 10-K data, drug pulls FAERS data) and clarifies 'values' format (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug) plus constraints (2-5 items). Exceeds the schema's minimal 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 clearly states a specific verb-resource combination: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs'. It includes example query triggers (e.g., 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly provides usage context: when user asks for comparisons (quotes examples), states it replaces '8–15 sequential lookups', and directly advises preference over alternative approaches. No ambiguity on when to use.

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

All Rdap 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The RDAP tools (domain, ip, asn, nameserver, entity) are distinct, but the larger Pipeworx collection creates significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, recent_changes), but the set mixes short single nouns (domain, ip, asn, entity) with compound names, and there are oddities like generate_llms_txt and ask_pipeworx_grounded that deviate from a clear uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the server is far heavier than expected for an RDAP service. The RDAP core only needs ~5 tools; the rest are an unrelated Pipeworx mega-suite (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback) that makes the server feel like a dumping ground rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness4/5

For the RDAP portion, coverage is complete: domain, IP, ASN, nameserver, and entity records are all present. The broader Pipeworx features also cover their own workflows (query, research, comparison, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle), but the server's stated RDAP identity is muddied by these extras, and some integration points (e.g., no direct update for RDAP data, which is read-only anyway) are inherent limitations.

Resources