Skip to main content
Glama

Jwt

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results may include multiple candidates (figi_candidates), unresolvable identifiers are surfaced under 'unresolved' rather than omitted, and LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully when upstream sources are unavailable. It also notes internal cascading lookups. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overloaded as one dense run-on paragraph with interleaved examples, nested parentheticals, and abrupt topic shifts. While most content is useful, the lack of clear sections or sentence-level structure makes it hard to scan. It is more sprawling than concise, despite the front-loaded 'Use FIRST' guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers the identifier families returned, candidate and unresolved behavior, graceful degradation, and the internal cascade that replaces multiple manual lookups. It is not exhaustive about the exact response shape, but it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret results.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial practical meaning beyond the schema: accepted input formats per type, explicit warning to pass only the entity name and never the full question noun phrase, bond issuer formatting guidance, and ISIN example semantics. This materially helps an agent populate the value parameter correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers, enumerates supported entity types ('company', 'drug'), and names the identifier families (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI). It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities beyond the generic 'Use FIRST' guidance.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies scope, such as resolving bonds via issuer names and covering non-US issuers through ISIN-to-LEI. However, it does not state when NOT to use the tool or name an alternative tool for situations where an ID is already available.

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

All Jwt 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language queries to the same underlying catalog, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently documented as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also overlaps in purpose, leaving an agent to parse fine-grained differences before selecting.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and several share recognizable prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps readability. However, the verb/noun order is inconsistent—compare_entities vs entity_profile, bet_research vs deep_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence vs ai_visibility_check—and bare verbs like remember, forget, and subscribe mix with noun-first names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set. The bloat is worse because the server is named 'Jwt' but only one tool relates to JWT; the rest cover unrelated domains such as data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning, so the count is neither scoped to the server's name nor internally cohesive.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Jwt', the surface is severely incomplete: only decode_jwt is present, with no sign, verify, encode, or refresh tools, so common JWT workflows dead-end. Even when judged as a general Pipeworx data toolkit, the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool surface creates a significant gap for agents expecting JWT functionality.

Resources