Skip to main content
Glama

disease

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit `unresolved` reporting, candidate-based behavior on ambiguous matches, and internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints. There is no contradiction with 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 is information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and examples, but the company-type section is a sprawling run-on parenthetical that is difficult to parse. Almost all the content is useful, but the structure could be tightened with shorter sentences and clearer separation of concerns.

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?

For a two-type resolver with no output schema, the description covers accepted inputs, supported types, ambiguity handling, unresolved results, source attribution, and degradation behavior. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly; the missing concrete output-shape example is not a significant gap given the textual return semantics.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by documenting accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name), explaining ISIN-to-legal-entity resolution, and warning about entity-name-only input for bonds. This is a clear improvement over the schema, though not essential for basic invocation.

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 opens with concrete example queries and states 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and a clear workflow role. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like entity_profile, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which gives a clear when-to-use rule. It also explains supported entity types and input forms, plus edge cases like ambiguous instrument names. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not complete.

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

All disease 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as the three variants of ask_pipeworx and the multiple prediction market analyzers. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the correct tool in some cases.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist (e.g., forget, remember, recall) but do not significantly harm predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server feels heavy for a single named service. The broad scope justifies many tools, but it borders on overwhelming and could benefit from consolidation or clearer grouping.

Completeness3/5

Despite the name 'disease', the server covers a wide array of domains beyond health. However, while rich in data queries and prediction markets, it lacks obvious tools for domain-specific tasks like disease outbreak tracking or general full-text search.

Resources