Skip to main content
Glama

ukpolice

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description does not contradict these.

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?

Every sentence provides value: purpose, usage preference, data sources, fiscal-year handling, sorting, and output. The phrasing is dense but not bloated, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key directive to prefer this tool over sequential lookups.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity) and covers the nuances of both entity types, including fiscal-year edge cases and sorting behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage (type enum and values description). The description adds meaning by explaining what each type pulls ('type="company" pulls LATEST 10-K...') and gives examples of values for both types, which enriches the schema's basic 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 the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one call, with concrete example queries ('Compare X and Y', 'rank these companies'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities'.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and notes it 'Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.' It also explains the distinction between company and drug types, helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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

All ukpolice 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

Several clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all answer questions, and the five polymarket_* tools require careful reading to distinguish. The three UK police tools are clear, but they sit among many near-duplicate data-query and memory utilities.

Naming Consistency2/5

Mixed conventions: snake_case verb_noun (get_crimes) coexists with brand-style names (ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (forget, recall). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set lacks a single pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three relate to the server's stated ukpolice domain, while the rest form a general-purpose data platform. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, memory) add bulk relative to the core purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Pipeworx scope, coverage is strong: query, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. But for the ukpolice name, it is missing many UK police endpoints (neighborhoods, stop-and-search, etc.) and has no write/update operations, so the surface feels mismatched.

Resources