Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc Ecfs

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?

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already set, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, returning `figi_candidates` rather than asserting a single match, and labeling identifiers by source. This goes well beyond 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with example queries and the 'Use FIRST' directive. It is long and includes several embedded parentheticals, which slightly harms readability, but nearly every clause adds differentiating or operational detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned: canonical identifiers per entity type, source labels, unresolved identifiers, figi_candidates on ambiguity, and RxNorm citation information. It also covers input constraints, supported types, and failure degradation, so an agent has enough context to call it 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%, but the description adds high-value meaning beyond the schema: for bonds, value must be the issuer exactly as printed and not the full noun phrase; it gives concrete examples for ticker, CIK, and drug names; and it explains the ISIN-to-LEI resolution path. This materially improves 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 names a specific verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken name into canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It immediately gives concrete example queries, enumerates supported entity types, and makes clear this is an ID-lookup tool distinct from profile or comparison siblings.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which gives strong and actionable context for when to invoke it. It also notes the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities, so exclusions/alternatives are only partially covered.

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

All Fcc Ecfs 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

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as multiple query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). An agent would struggle to select the appropriate tool due to ambiguous distinctions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of styles: some follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, forget), others use noun_verb (ecfs_docket_filings), and many are short or compound (bet_research, entity_profile). While the ecfs- prefix tools are consistent, the overall set lacks a uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a server named after FCC ECFS, as only 4 tools are directly relevant to that domain. The inclusion of many general-purpose data tools makes the set feel bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

For the FCC ECFS domain, the tool set is incomplete (only 4 tools, lacking submission or deletion capabilities). However, as a general-purpose data query server, it covers many sources (SEC, FDA, patents, etc.). The name mismatch hurts the perceived completeness.

Resources