Skip to main content
Glama

Send That Email

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, news, GLEIF and returns: cik + company_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); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. Pass ticker "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK "0000320193" — names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today; person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: the tool makes one parallel call, fans across multiple sources, and notes that the patents API sunset in May 2025 (soft-fails until reactivated). This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 well-structured with an opening block of example queries, then a clear list of returned data sources. While it is relatively long, every sentence contributes value; minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall efficient.

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 complexity (multiple data sources and no output schema), the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and their formats (e.g., pipeworx URIs, sorted period_end DESC). It also covers limitations (no names, patent soft-fail) and provides sufficient context for the agent to set expectations.

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%, and the description reinforces the semantics: type is fixed to 'company', value can be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and names are not supported. It adds practical context but does not introduce entirely new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs like 'full cross-source profile' and 'returns' along with concrete examples ('Tell me about X', 'brief me on Tesla'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose as a holistic company information aggregator. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity by specifying that names are not supported.

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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack... lookups' for holistic views and instructs to use resolve_entity first if only a name is available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Send That Email 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer queries with subtly different guarantees. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) also has fuzzy boundaries. Despite detailed descriptions, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: there are verb_noun names (discover_tools, resolve_entity), noun-based names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and odd constructions like send_that_email_analyze. No clear pattern dominates, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent email-sending purpose. The count feels bloated and the scope mismatched, though it is not extreme enough for a 1.

Completeness1/5

Given the server name 'Send That Email', the tool surface is severely incomplete: there is only an email analysis tool and no actual sending, drafting, or mailbox management. The bulk of the tools address data lookup and research, leaving the core email workflow entirely unimplemented.

Resources