Skip to main content
Glama

Adsb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Resolve Entity

resolve_entity
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's the ticker for…" / "find the CIK for…" / "what's the LEI for…" / "what's the RxCUI for…" / "look up the ID for…" / "what is X's official identifier" / "who owns X" / "is X a subsidiary of Y" — resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID. SUPPORTED TYPES: "company" (cross-source identity spine: 10-digit CIK + ticker + company_name from SEC EDGAR, legal-entity LEI from GLEIF with parent/ultimate-parent/children ownership when the LEI resolves, and security FIGI from OpenFIGI — by exact ticker map when a ticker is implied, and otherwise by name search, so NON-EQUITY instruments that never have a ticker (municipal and corporate bonds, notes, authority debt) DO resolve here; when a name matches more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates to pick from, which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond; every identifier is labelled with the source that established it, and an identifier that could NOT be resolved is stated explicitly under unresolved rather than omitted — accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name as input; an ISIN like "CH0038863350" resolves to the LEGAL ENTITY that issued the security via the GLEIF ISIN-to-LEI mapping, covering non-US issuers EDGAR cannot reach), "drug" (returns RxCUI + ingredient + brand from RxNorm + pipeworx://rxnorm/concept/{rxcui} citation; accepts brand or generic name). LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully — if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, the EDGAR identifiers still return. Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally — using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valueYesFor company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., "ozempic", "metformin"). Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH"), never the question's full noun phrase ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds"): the FIGI lookup matches instrument names, so trailing security-class words match nothing.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\"). Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed (\"NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH\"), never the question's full noun phrase (\"NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds\"): the FIGI lookup matches instrument names, so trailing security-class words match nothing."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: cross-source enrichment, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting rather than omission, and ambiguity handling through `figi_candidates`. This is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent needs to know.

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 long and dense, but nearly every clause earns its place by addressing selection, invocation, or edge cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and 'Use FIRST' guidance. It could be better structured with clearer visual separation between company and drug behavior, but it is not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining return behavior, and it delivers: it describes ambiguity handling, unresolved identifiers, identifier provenance, fallback behavior, and coverage limitations. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what results to expect.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: concrete value examples (AAPL, 0000320193, CH0038863350, 'ozempic'), the distinction between issuer names and instrument names for bonds, and the explicit warning not to pass full noun phrases. This materially reduces likely invocation errors.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It also enumerates the supported entity types ('company', 'drug') and the identifier spaces involved, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from downstream profile/comparison tools.

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 guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also provides trigger-phrase examples and supported lookup contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name sibling alternatives such as entity_profile or compare_entities, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Adsb 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 have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all overlap as query/research entry points, and ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence plus the six polymarket_* tools create further confusion. An agent would often need deep description reading to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes consistent verb_noun forms (get_aircraft, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun phrases (aircraft_near, military_aircraft, recent_alerts), adjective-led names (polymarket_arbitrage), and conversational names (ask_pipeworx, suggest_questions). Subgroups like polymarket_* are internally consistent, but overall there is no unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for any cohesive server, especially one named 'Adsb' where only 4 tools relate to aircraft tracking. The count is inflated by many overlapping meta-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools, making it feel like several servers were merged into one.

Completeness2/5

For the implied 'Adsb' domain, only live ADSB positioning is covered; airport info, flight schedules, route search, and aviation weather are missing. Even as a general data/betting server, there are gaps like a direct stock-quote tool and unclear lifecycle coverage across the mixed feature set, so agents will likely hit dead ends.

Resources