Skip to main content
Glama

Myvariant

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?

Despite readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, returns unresolved identifiers explicitly under `unresolved`, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are down, and returns `figi_candidates` for ambiguous matches. This goes well beyond the 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 and front-loaded with purpose and usage, but it is long and contains many parenthetical asides. Nearly every sentence adds value for a complex tool, though a tighter structure could improve readability.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers input constraints, output behavior, ambiguity handling, failure modes, and source provenance. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, and what to expect back.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description significantly enriches parameter meaning. It explains that `value` must be the entity name only, not the full noun phrase, and gives concrete formatting guidance for bonds and drugs, plus accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name). This is far more than the schema provides.

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 example queries and states the exact function: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. It also distinguishes this tool from the broader ecosystem by framing it as the first step whenever a name but no ID is present.

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 directive: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," along with clear examples of when the tool applies (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI lookups). It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is strongly implied.

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

All Myvariant 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_fill_risk) all target 'find edge in Polymarket markets' with subtle differences. query and variant both retrieve the same variant annotations, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, polymarket_edges, remember/recall/forget). Minor deviations exist: the bare nouns query, variant, and metadata are less descriptive, and ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix instead of a clean verb pattern, but the overall convention is fairly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'Myvariant' whose stated domain is genetic variant annotations. The set is a grab-bag spanning genetic data, Pipeworx query routing, Polymarket betting, memory persistence, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm dependency scanning. Most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making the count feel bloated and incoherent.

Completeness3/5

Individual clusters are reasonably complete: variants have search/get/metadata, memory has remember/recall/forget, and subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts. However, as a Myvariant server the surface is massively over-scoped yet oddly missing any batch-variant or annotation-source-specific lookup, and the sprawling multi-domain design makes 'complete' hard to meaningfully assess.

Resources