Skip to main content
Glama

Nps

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 rich behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI enrichment fails, the 'asserts nothing' behavior with ambiguous matches, explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers, internal cascading across endpoints, and source-labelling of identifiers. No contradiction with annotations; this adds substantial context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with examples and the core purpose, then moves into supported types. It is dense but mostly earns its length; a few sentences are overlong and combine multiple clauses (e.g., the figi_candidates explanation), slightly hurting readability. Overall still efficient for the amount of guidance provided.

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 this tool's complexity (multiple identifier types, enrichment, ambiguity, degradation) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: inputs, outputs like `figi_candidates` and `unresolved`, unsupported entity types (non-EDGAR issuers via ISIN), and failure behavior. An agent can confidently decide when and how to call it, and interpret its response.

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 already describes both parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics: the distinction between ticker/CIK/name for companies, brand vs generic for drugs, and the 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule with a concrete bond example showing why 'revenue bonds' should be stripped. This goes well beyond the schema in preventing incorrect invocations.

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?

Uses specific verbs and resources: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools by focusing on name-to-ID resolution, with explicit query examples that signal when it applies. The 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' line further cements its unique role.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and provides representative utterances ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…'), giving an agent clear triggering conditions. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or explicitly state negative cases, but the guidance is strong enough for practical selection.

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

All Nps 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., NPS park tools vs. Pipeworx queries vs. Polymarket analysis). Some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and among the many Polymarket tools, but descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions vary: some use verb_noun (list_parks), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, scan_competitor_ai_presence). While all use snake_case, there is no consistent pattern in prefixes or verb choice.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a coherent server. The set appears to bundle multiple unrelated domains (NPS, Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) into a single server, lacking focused scope.

Completeness3/5

Each domain has notable gaps (e.g., NPS lacks real-time conditions; Pipeworx lacks data ingestion tools; Polymarket lacks order placement). Some sub-areas (memory, subscriptions) are complete, but overall the surface is incomplete for the broad range of domains.

Resources