Skip to main content
Glama

Ulid

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 patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a 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); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. Only \"company\" supported today; person/place coming soon."New value: +"\"company\" or \"ticker\" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "ticker"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name."New value: +"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"), or company name (e.g., \"Moderna\") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description far exceeds the annotations by disclosing parallel fan-out across sources, GDELT→GNews fallback behavior, the meaning of sources_used/sources_failed (empty sections are real no-data, not bugs), and the resolved:false + notes behavior for private companies. This is substantial, actionable behavioral context beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with examples and the core purpose, but it is a long wall of text with a multi-line parenthetical and repeats schema-redundant content at the end. Bullet points or tighter organization would improve scannability, and not every sentence strictly earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description reasonably carries the burden of explaining return shape: cik, company_name, resolved_from/resolved_to, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals fields, and sources_used/sources_failed. It also covers accepted inputs, scope (US public companies), and private-company behavior. Minor gaps remain around per-source output details, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the fact that type accepts 'company' or 'ticker' interchangeably and value can be a ticker, CIK, or company name. The tool description essentially mirrors this same information without adding new input semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the function: a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' supported by concrete example prompts. It is easy to tell this tool builds a holistic profile, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like compare_entities or resolve_entity, only from generic 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view,' plus example phrasings that trigger the tool. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives from the sibling list, so it misses the top score.

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

All Ulid 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as query entry points (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now); polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research form a dense prediction-market suite; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are single vs. multi variants. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool without reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean snake_case convention and are mostly verb_noun (generate_ulid, parse_ulid, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim, compare_entities), making the set predictable. Minor deviations exist (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, ask_pipeworx_beta) but they are still readable and don't break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and the server name 'Ulid' suggests a tiny scope that wildly mismatches the actual content. While the real domain (Pipeworx data + prediction markets) is broad, the set bundles many subdomains into one server, making navigation and selection costly.

Completeness4/5

For the actual apparent domain—structured data research, entity lookups, verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions—coverage is strong: query, grounded query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, resolution, validation, discovery, alerts, and memory tools are all present. ULID functionality is minimal but sufficient (generate + parse). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct single-source browser beyond discover_tools) but agents can work around them.

Resources