Skip to main content
Glama

Gtex

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavior beyond that: ambiguity handling ('when a name matches more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates'), explicit unresolved reporting ('stated explicitly under unresolved rather than omitted'), source-labelling of identifiers, the internal cascade across lookup endpoints, and graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. This gives the agent an accurate model for interpreting results, not just call safety.

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 well front-loaded (examples, core function, usage directive) and every sentence carries information with no fluff. However, it is structured as one run-on paragraph with deeply nested parentheticals — the 'company' parenthetical alone spans roughly 200 words and buries important distinctions like figi_candidates and the unresolved field. The density is justified, but the formatting actively hurts scannability for an agent.

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 tool with no output schema, the description bears the full interpretive burden and succeeds: it names the response fields an agent needs (figi_candidates, unresolved), enumerates output identifiers for both entity types, and covers edge cases (non-equity instruments, non-US issuers, ambiguous names, source unavailability). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it expands the 'company' type into a cross-source identity spine (EDGAR CIK, GLEIF LEI with ownership chains, OpenFIGI), explains the ISIN-to-LEI resolution behavior, and clarifies which value forms are accepted. The schema's value description already carries the 'entity name only' guidance, so this is an enhancement on top of a strong schema rather than a rescue — a solid 4.

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 precise operation — resolving a user-spoken NAME into canonical/official identifiers — and anchors it with concrete example queries ('what's the ticker for…', 'who owns X', 'is X a subsidiary of Y'). It enumerates the supported types and identifier systems it returns (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), and the position-stating sentence 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' separates it sharply from sibling tools like entity_profile or validate_claim.

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 directive 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit when-to-use condition, reinforced by the mapped user phrasings at the top and the catalog of accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic name). It stops short of a 5 because it never names sibling alternatives explicitly or states an explicit when-not-to-use case — the exclusion ('if you already have the ID') is only implied.

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

All Gtex 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently described as functionally identical, which is a direct ambiguity, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence plus the polymarket_* tools create several overlapping boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent still has to read deep into each one to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable lowercase snake_case verb_noun names like discover_tools, resolve_entity, and validate_claim, but the set also includes bare nouns like gene and tissues, verb-only memory tools like remember/recall/forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. The style is not chaotic, but no single convention is sustained.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and the surface is heavily padded with overlapping meta-tools, near-duplicate routers, and unrelated clusters such as Polymarket arbitrage, AI-visibility checks, and GTEx expression queries. For a server named Gtex, most of these tools are outside the apparent domain, making the count feel overgrown rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

The GTEx-specific subset has only five tools and lacks obvious endpoints like multi-issue eQTLs, isoform expression, or sample-level querying, while the remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and subscription domains. There is no coherent single purpose against which the surface can be considered complete, so agents will often hit dead ends or spend calls figuring out what the server is actually for.

Resources