Skip to main content
Glama

Hathitrust

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` listing for unresolvable identifiers, and the `figi_candidates` return for ambiguous names. This goes well beyond what annotations alone communicate and provides transparency about edge cases and failure modes.

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 long but well-structured: it opens with the purpose and query examples, then breaks down supported types with detailed notes, and ends with enrichment/fallback behavior. Every major point has a purpose, but some details (e.g., the full list of identifier sources) could be trimmed without losing value. It is not overly verbose for the complexity it covers, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple entity types, multiple identifier sources, ambiguity handling, degradation), the description covers everything an agent needs: input formatting, supported inputs, what it returns for each type, unresolved handling, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the description explains return behavior adequately. No gaps remain for the agent 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?

Although the schema coverage is 100%, the description significantly enriches both parameters. For `type`, it explains the semantic difference between 'company' and 'drug' and what each resolves to. For `value`, it gives concrete examples (ticker, CIK, ISIN, names) and clarifies the exact input format, including the warning about removing security-class words for bonds. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It gives concrete query examples, enumerates supported types (company, drug) and even distinguishes itself from alternatives by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This makes the tool's role unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from siblings like lookup_by_identifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' directly tells the agent when to choose this tool. It also specifies input formats (e.g., 'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed'), warns against common mistakes ('trailing security-class words match nothing'), and explains that it replaces manual lookups. This is explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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

All Hathitrust 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

The tool set mixes tools from multiple unrelated domains (HathiTrust, Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making it unclear which tool to use for a given task. Overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between several Polymarket tools, while the HathiTrust-specific tools are few and buried among many others, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent across the tool set. Some tools use verb_noun (check_full_view, lookup_by_identifier), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research), and some are single verbs (forget, remember, subscribe). There is no predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to guess tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but only 3 (get_record, lookup_by_identifier, check_full_view) are relevant to the server's stated purpose (HathiTrust). The remaining 30 tools appear to be from unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the tool count severely mismatched with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the HathiTrust domain, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only three basic lookup tools with no search, browse, or management capabilities. The broader set includes tools for many other domains, but that does not compensate for the lack of coverage of the server's primary purpose.

Resources