Skip to main content
Glama

Census

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rich behavioral details beyond the annotations: internal multi-endpoint cascade, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers, and ambiguity handling via figi_candidates. This is far more than the readOnly/idempotent hints 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 quite long, but it is well-organized with example queries, explicit supported types, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with usage cues, and while some examples (e.g., the ISIN number) could be trimmed, the overall length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers input scenarios, edge cases (ambiguous bond names), degradation behavior, and result semantics like figi_candidates and unresolved fields. Given there is no output schema, this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect when invoking the tool.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: for 'value' it explains exact formatting rules (e.g., pass the issuer name exactly as printed, never the full noun phrase), and for 'type' it details source mappings and ISIN-to-LEI behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's brief 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 explicitly states the tool's function: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It provides concrete example queries and clearly positions the tool as the first step in identifier lookup, distinguishing it from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities that serve different purposes.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and it elaborates on supported entity types and input formats. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for overlapping tasks, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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

All Census 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 appear to do the same thing: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all provide natural-language data lookup, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The six Polymarket tools also have heavily overlapping boundaries, and the Census-specific tools overlap with each other and with ask_pipeworx's routing to Census data.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent, but the pattern is a mix: some are verb_noun (discover_tools, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions) while many are noun_verb or bare noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, census_acs). Suffixes like _beta, _grounded, and the scattered noun-first names prevent a uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well into the too-heavy range for a coherent server. Even if the domain truly is broad data research and prediction markets, many of these tools are near-duplicates or serve the same purpose with minor variations, so the count feels inflated rather than scoped.

Completeness4/5

The broad data-research domain is well covered: single lookups (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), multi-source research (deep_research, entitity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), plus memory and subscription utilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general data update/delete, but data is read-only; no direct Census variable explorer beyond census_available_datasets), but no critical dead ends appear.

Resources