Skip to main content
Glama

Intact

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: graceful degradation if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers surfaced under `unresolved`, and source-labelled identifiers. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 examples and the 'Use FIRST' rule, but it is structured as one long run-on paragraph with some redundancy, such as restating accepted inputs that the schema already documents. Most content earns its place, but readability and concise organization are sacrificed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explaining return behavior: candidate lists when ambiguity exists, explicit unresolved handling, source-labelled identifiers, and drug-specific outputs like RxCUI and brand. It also covers edge cases such as non-US issuers, non-equity instruments, and degraded enrichment. The description is highly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already 100%, and the description adds significant parameter-level meaning: concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, ozempic), the constraint to pass the entity name only, the warning about trailing security-class words, and ISIN-to-LEI behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's simple property 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 that the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require, and it enumerates the supported entity types (company and drug) with their identifier sources (EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compare_entities and entity_profile by centering on name-to-ID resolution.

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 usage rule: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains that the tool internally cascades through multiple lookup endpoints and replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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

All Intact 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research form a confusing cluster—especially since ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket tools are highly specialized and mostly separable, and interaction_count/find_interactions have clear but overlapping scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), which is predictable and readable. There are some noun-style names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and interaction_count, plus brand-prefixed families like pipeworx_* and polymarket_*, but the conventions are consistent enough within families.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is beyond the 25+ threshold and the set spans several unrelated domains—molecular interactions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, AI brand visibility, and prediction-market arbitrage—making it feel like multiple servers merged into one. Several niche tools could be consolidated or split into separate MCP servers, and ask_pipeworx_beta adds redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are very well covered: lookup/grounded answering/deep research, tool discovery, entity resolution, profiles and comparisons, claim validation, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and prediction-market analysis from edge detection to fill-risk. Minor gaps include no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and some soft-failing data sources, but agents can work around those.

Resources