Skip to main content
Glama

The Guardian

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial detail: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields (cik, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents sunset note, news fallback), exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 dense but front-loaded with examples. While lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose; minor structural improvements could enhance readability, but it remains effective.

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 and lack of output schema, the description comprehensively details return fields, source behavior, soft-fail mechanisms, and cross-references to sibling 'resolve_entity', fully preparing the agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds practical examples for values ('AAPL', '0000320193') and clarifies type support ('Only "company" supported today'), slightly improving usability.

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 numerous example queries like 'Tell me about X' and explicitly states 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' clearly defining the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from siblings like 'resolve_entity' and chain 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?

Explicit guidance to 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack... lookups' for holistic views, and clear indication that names are not supported ('use resolve_entity first'), providing when-to-use and alternatives.

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

All The Guardian 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes and similar names, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). The Guardian-specific tools are distinct but are outnumbered by these confusing clusters, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), some are verbs without objects (item, tags, forget, recall), and some are inconsistent in style (compare_entities vs. bet_research). There is no unifying naming convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is bloated for its implied purpose ('The Guardian' suggests a focused news outlet). Many tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket prediction markets), making the count feel excessive and unfocused. A news-specific server should have far fewer tools.

Completeness1/5

The tool set lacks a coherent domain. The Guardian news tools are complete (search, item, sections, etc.), but the massive inclusion of Pipeworx and Polymarket tools creates dead ends and gaps (e.g., no direct tool to list all prediction markets or search patents). The surface feels like a random collection rather than a designed whole.

Resources