Skip to main content
Glama

Malwarebazaar

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable ('the EDGAR identifiers still return'), multi-candidate behavior ('returns `figi_candidates` to pick from'), and explicit `unresolved` output rather than omission. These are valuable traits not encoded in annotations.

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 dense, packed with parentheticals and semicolons, especially in the 'company' section. It is front-loaded with query examples and a first-use directive, but could be restructured for readability. Still, nearly every clause adds needed information.

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 must explain return values, and it does: company returns CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership, FIGI, `figi_candidates`, `unresolved`; drug returns RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation. It also covers edge cases like ISIN mapping and enrichment failure, so an agent has enough 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?

The schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds substantial guidance: accepted input formats for company (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), drug brand/generic examples ('ozempic', 'metformin'), and a critical formatting warning to pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY for bonds. This exceeds the schema's 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?

States a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME' to canonical/official identifiers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the first step for name-to-ID lookup: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' The SUPPORTED TYPES breakdown further specifies company and drug entities.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and notes it 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups.' However, it does not name any alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Malwarebazaar 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
Disambiguation1/5

The server is named Malwarebazaar, yet 28 of 36 tools have nothing to do with malware—they cover general data lookup, SEC filings, Polymarket betting, memory, and npm scanning. Even within the malware tools, search_family, search_signature, search_tag, recent_samples, and get_sample_info overlap heavily, and the Pipeworx tools include near-duplicates like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. An agent cannot reliably pick between these without reading lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

A few tools follow verb_noun patterns (search_family, search_tag, get_sample_info, list_subscriptions), but the set mixes styles: ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile vs polymarket_arbitrage vs generate_llms_txt vs scan_dependency. Prefixes are inconsistent (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, scan_*, get_*, list_*, recent_*), and there is no predictable convention tying names to their domain.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far beyond what a MalwareBazaar MCP server should expose; most of the tools actually belong to a separate Pipeworx data platform, with only 5-6 malware-specific tools. The count is heavy and unfocused, especially for a server whose name implies a single malware-intel corpus.

Completeness2/5

For the malware domain, the set covers lookup by hash, family, signature, tag, and recent samples, but lacks obvious operations like submitting a sample, downloading a sample, or getting detailed YARA rule hits. For the broader Pipeworx domain, the surface is sprawling and overlaps heavily (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs validate_claim vs bet_research), so the completeness is uneven—deep in some niches, missing core malware workflow actions.

Resources