Skip to main content
Glama

Zoho_crm

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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting behavior by primary metric, and output format with citation URIs. This rich behavioral detail is not present in the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, explicit preference rule, data source details, sorting behavior, and output format. It is front-loaded with high-value usage examples and avoids repeating schema content.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description is complete. It explains the parallel call advantage, data sources, sorting, fiscal-year handling, and citation URIs, leaving no major unanswered questions about invocation or expected results.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining what each enum value pulls (10-K financials vs. FAERS/trial counts) and giving concrete examples for values. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's terse 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 a single parallel call. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes it from sequential single-pack lookups by explicitly replacing them.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities') and provides trigger phrase examples. It also differentiates behavior for type=company vs type=drug, giving clear context for both use cases.

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

All Zoho_crm 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five Zoho CRM tools are well-differentiated, but the 31 Pipeworx/Polymarket tools create heavy overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all serve similar lookup purposes). Mixing two unrelated domains makes it easy for an agent to select a tool from the wrong group.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Zoho tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix, but the remaining 31 tools follow no clear convention—ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile, forget, scan_dependency, etc. mix noun-first, verb-first, and bare verb patterns without a unifying scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond what a Zoho CRM server needs, and only 5 actually relate to Zoho CRM. The bulk are for unrelated data sources, prediction markets, memory management, and web generation, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Zoho CRM surface includes create, get, list, and search, but omits essential operations like update, delete, and upsert. The other 31 tools cover a completely different domain, so the server fails to provide complete lifecycle coverage for its stated purpose.

Resources