Skip to main content
Glama

The Graph

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: internal cascading through multiple endpoints, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are down, explicit `figi_candidates` on ambiguity, source-labelled identifiers, and explicit `unresolved` reporting. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 usage directive, and the density is justified by the tool's complexity. However, the prose is long and run-on in places, with nested parentheticals that could be structured more cleanly while saying the same things.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and a complex resolution pipeline, the description covers everything an agent needs: supported entity types, input forms, failure behavior, ambiguity handling, third-party dependencies, and cross-reference to other tools. Nothing important is left unstated.

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 rich meaning beyond the schema, especially for `value`: exact formatting guidance, the bond-issuer caveat about matching names exactly and not including security-class words, and examples for both company and drug types. This is far above the baseline.

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 names a precise action — resolving a spoken name to canonical identifiers — and scopes it with concrete example queries and supported types. It clearly positions the tool as the identifier-lookup step for other tools, which sets it apart from siblings like compare_entities or entity_profile.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," plus recognizable user-phrase examples. It does not name siblings to avoid or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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

All The Graph 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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx plus the many polymarket_* tools have adjacent intents that are easy to confuse. scan_competitor_ai_presence also directly wraps ai_visibility_check, so an agent can easily select the wrong tool for the same task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-first (query_subgraph, introspect_schema, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The repeated prefixes help, but there is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, this exceeds a reasonable single-server footprint, and the scope sprawls across data routing, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm dependencies, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Many tools feel like separate mini-applications rather than one coherent toolkit for The Graph.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market side is well covered with lookup, grounded answers, research, comparison, profiles, claims, subscriptions, and memory. However, the server's apparent namesake, The Graph, is thin: only query_subgraph and introspect_schema exist, with no subgraph discovery, status, or management tools.

Resources