Skip to main content
Glama

Biosamples

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 it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, explicit unresolved results, and the ISIN-to-LEI route for non-US issuers. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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, but most sentences carry unique information: examples, supported types, degradation behavior, and input-format caveats. It is front-loaded with the most important guidance ('Use FIRST'), though the parentheticals are dense and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 explains what will be returned: CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, FIGI candidates, and RxCUI with ingredient and brand. It covers input formats, supported entity types, failure behavior, and scope exclusions, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial semantic value: it expands the accepted input for company to include ISIN, clarifies that drug accepts brand or generic names, and gives a critical usage warning about passing only the entity name rather than the full noun phrase. These details materially improve correct invocation.

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-object pair: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input, and names the supported types (company, drug) with concrete examples. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities by focusing on name-to-ID resolution.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving clear directional guidance. It also explains that non-equity instruments resolve here and that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, though it does not name specific sibling tools to avoid or contrast against.

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

All Biosamples 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is a subtle behavioral variant, creating a real selection hazard. The six polymarket_* tools also blur together (edges vs arbitrage vs fill_risk vs kalshi_spread all relate to finding and acting on mispricings), and scan_competitor_ai_presence is largely a wrapper over ai_visibility_check.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families share clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, scan_*), which keeps the set readable. However, the set mixes verb-first names (get_sample, compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and the _beta suffix signals a status while _grounded signals a behavior, so the pattern is not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is above the threshold where a tool set starts to feel bloated, and for a server named 'Biosamples' it is an extreme scope mismatch: 31 of 33 tools relate to Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, or subscriptions rather than biological samples. The count is also padded with near-duplicates such as ask_pipeworx_beta and scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Completeness2/5

Against the server's stated identity, the BioSamples surface is severely thin: only search_samples and get_sample exist, with no batch retrieval, project/group navigation, sample-group hierarchy, or submission/update path. The 31 unrelated tools do not fill this gap — they serve a completely different domain, so an agent using this server for biological sample data will hit dead ends.

Resources