Skip to main content
Glama

flights

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: it cascades through multiple endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returns figi_candidates when ambiguous, and explicitly reports unresolved identifiers under an `unresolved` field. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's execution even without an output schema.

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 front-loaded with examples and the key trigger, but it becomes a dense wall of text with nested parentheticals (e.g., the long FIGI explanation, the ISIN-to-LEI aside). Most sentences carry useful information, but the structure could be tightened with bullets or shorter clauses 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential runtime behaviors: accepted inputs, source identifiers, ambiguity handling, resilience to external-service failures, and unresolved-result reporting. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret unexpected outcomes.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: concrete ticker/CIK/ISIN examples for company, brand/generic examples for drug, and critical guidance on passing only the entity name (not the full noun phrase) for bond lookups. This materially prevents misparameterization.

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 clearly defines the tool as resolving user-spoken names to canonical identifiers and enumerates concrete supported types (company, drug) with their output identifiers. This distinguishes it from likely siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities: it is explicitly positioned as the tool to use when you have a name but need an ID.

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 gives an explicit trigger: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," reinforced with example phrasings. It also covers edge cases like ambiguous instrument names and graceful degradation, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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

All flights 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research blur the query/research boundary, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research all target prediction-market analysis. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the verb/noun style is inconsistent: get_* for flight lookups, ask_* for queries, noun-style names like entity_profile and bet_research, and the polymarket_* prefix group. Some subgroups are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server named 'flights' — only 5 tools actually relate to aviation, while the rest span prediction markets, SEC/FDA data, npm packages, memory, and feedback. Even viewed as a general data platform, the count is heavy and the scope is unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a flights server, the surface is severely incomplete: no scheduled flight status, delays, cancellations, or airport schedules — only live ADS-B snapshots. For the broader data-research domain the tools imply, coverage is better but still scattered, with no coherent lifecycle and several one-off utilities that don't connect to the rest.

Resources