Skip to main content
Glama

Mojang

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?

Even with annotations indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds rich behavioral detail: cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, not asserting a single FIGI when multiple candidates exist, returning `figi_candidates`, and explicitly listing unresolved identifiers rather than omitting them. This goes far beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent set correct expectations.

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 densely packed with useful information, and it front-loads the core purpose and usage directive ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID'). While every sentence adds value, the structure is somewhat sprawling with many nested caveats; tighter organization within supported-type sections would earn a 5.

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—two entity types, multiple identifier systems, ownership data, and enrichment fallbacks—the description covers the key return semantics: CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand, `figi_candidates`, and `unresolved`. It also explains failure behavior and internal cascading, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly even without an output schema.

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 100%, but the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema: acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name), exact-match vs name-search behavior, the distinction between issuer and instrument name, and a critical prohibition against passing full noun phrases. This additional context is vital for correct invocation and prevents likely misuse.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), with concrete examples such as 'What's the ticker for…' and 'find the CIK for…'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by stating it supplies IDs that other tools require as input, and it explicitly lists supported entity types. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also provides detailed instructions for the value parameter, including what to pass and what to avoid (e.g., 'never the question's full noun phrase'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All Mojang 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently described as functionally identical, creating a clear misselection risk, and several query/answer tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities) have overlapping boundaries. The Polymarket tools also blur into each other, so despite verbose descriptions, an agent can easily route a request to the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, profile), and prefix families with inconsistent ordering (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_kalshi_spread). This is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the server name 'Mojang' implies a narrow Minecraft API scope while only 5 tools relate to Minecraft. The rest belong to a broad data-research, prediction-market, and memory platform, making the tool count feel inflated and mis-scoped for the server's stated identity.

Completeness2/5

For the implied Minecraft/Mojang domain, there are obvious gaps such as no authentication, skin/name mutation, or broader account endpoints, so that surface is thin. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx data side is fairly complete, but because two unrelated domains are jammed into one server, neither domain is covered in a coherent, trustworthy way.

Resources