Skip to main content
Glama

Kegg

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/idempotent/open-world annotations, the description discloses graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguous-name behavior via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, source labels, and internal cascading through multiple endpoints. These behaviors significantly help an agent predict outcomes before calling the tool.

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 and dense, but it front-loads the core purpose and usage intent. The supported-types section and parenthetical caveats are mostly necessary for a tool with two entity types and multiple identifier sources, though tighter formatting and less run-on phrasing would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: identifiers, source labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates, RxCUI citations, and failure mode when upstream sources are unavailable. Nothing critical for correct invocation is 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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, but the description adds useful semantic context: ISIN is accepted as a company input, names mapping to multiple instruments return candidates, and non-equity instruments without tickers can still resolve. Some of the entity-name-only guidance is duplicated from the schema, so the added value is meaningful but not overwhelming enough for a 5.

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 opens with concrete user-phrase examples and clearly states the verb-resource pair: resolve a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input. It further distinguishes itself by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and scopes supported types to 'company' and 'drug', making it hard to confuse with siblings like entity_profile or find.

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' and notes it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It also covers what inputs are accepted per type. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives or give exclusion criteria against sibling tools.

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

All Kegg 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly described distinct purposes, but several overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all occupy neighboring query/discovery territory. The Polymarket and memory tool families, by contrast, are well differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage) and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the toolkit.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and the count is especially inappropriate because the server is named Kegg but only find, get_entry, and list_database relate to KEGG bioinformatics. The remaining 31 tools span unrelated domains (generic data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning), making the scope feel like several products merged into one.

Completeness2/5

As a KEGG server, the surface is severely thin: three read-only tools with no pathway mapping, sequence search, or cross-reference utilities. The Pipeworx research and Polymarket betting subsystems are more complete, but their presence under a Kegg server makes the overall surface incoherent rather than complete.

Resources