Skip to main content
Glama

Openholidays

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, behavior on ambiguous name matches (returns figi_candidates rather than asserting), and explicit listing of unresolved identifiers under `unresolved`. It also notes internal cascading lookups, replacing 2-3 manual lookups. All consistent with annotations, adding value beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, every sentence carries distinct value: examples, type breakdowns, fallback behavior, and usage notes. The structure front-loads the purpose, then details types, then edge cases. No filler or repetition; it is appropriately dense for a complex, multi-source resolver.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers all essentials: return fields (`unresolved`, `figi_candidates`), source labels, and the exact input expectations for both entity types. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results, even shape edge cases like ISIN-to-LEI resolution for non-US issuers.

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 provides critical extra semantics: for `value` it clarifies entity-name-only rule, cites examples ('AAPL', '0000320193'), and warns against including security-class words for bonds. It also explains the `type` parameter's supported values with full context. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions, materially improving error-free invocation.

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 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names supported types (company, drug) and details the identifier sources, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly separates from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities by positioning itself as the first-step name-to-ID resolver.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit when-to-use directive. It elaborates on supported input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and gives operational guidance such as passing the issuer name exactly for bonds, warning about trailing words. This fully equips an agent to decide when to call it.

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

All Openholidays 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple Polymarket tools) and many serve unrelated domains, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task, especially given the server's holiday theme.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a lowercase_with_underscores pattern, but the prefixes vary (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, etc.) and some names are less descriptive (e.g., process, run, execute-like vague verbs are absent, but still the naming lacks a unified convention across the broad set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Openholidays'. The vast majority of tools (e.g., SEC filings, Polymarket, npm scanning) are unrelated to holidays, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the holiday domain, the server includes necessary tools (list_countries, list_subdivisions, public_holidays, school_holidays) and is complete. However, the server's actual scope is far broader, and many unrelated tools are present, which dilutes the completeness for its stated purpose.

Resources