Skip to main content
Glama

Dblp

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses major behavioral details: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are down, ambiguous matches returned as figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers explicitly listed, and cross-source identifier labeling. It also notes that one call replaces multiple lookups, giving realistic expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 packs a great deal of useful information but is structured as one dense, run-on block with many nested parentheticals, making it harder to parse. It is front-loaded with examples and purpose, yet the overall organization is verbose enough to warrant a below-average score.

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 available, the description carries a high burden, and it covers both supported types, input formats, ambiguity behavior, unresolved identifiers, source labeling, and failure degradation. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its outputs.

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?

The schema already documents the parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It introduces ISIN as an accepted company input, emphasizes passing the entity name only, and explains bond-issuer matching pitfalls with a concrete example.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: resolving user-spoken names into canonical IDs required by other tools, with concrete examples for tickers, CIKs, LEIs, and more. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 provides clear guidance with 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which tells an agent when the tool should be selected. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, falling just short of full routing guidance.

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

All Dblp 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in general purpose—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all retrieve factual data—though their descriptions draw clear mode distinctions. The Polymarket family is similarly dense but each member has a distinct role. An agent must read carefully to pick the right one, but the boundaries are mostly decipherable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow snake_case verb_noun or domain_noun patterns (search_publications, resolve_entity, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx). Minor exceptions like the bare verbs recall and forget break the pattern slightly, and mixed prefixes (pipeworx_, ask_, search_) are still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is heavy, but the deeper problem is scope mismatch: the server is named Dblp yet only 3 of 34 tools (search_authors, search_publications, search_venues) relate to DBLP. The remaining 31 tools form a broad general-purpose data platform that dwarfs and obscures the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a DBLP server, the surface is minimal: only search operations exist, with no record fetch-by-id, citation metrics, or author profile detail beyond what search returns. The bulk of the toolset addresses unrelated domains, leaving the actual DBLP workflow thin and incomplete.

Resources