Skip to main content
Glama

Wayback

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity handling via `figi_candidates`, source-labeled identifiers, explicit `unresolved` reporting, and the ISIN-to-LEI mapping path. This goes well beyond the annotation signals.

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 long, but it is front-loaded with example triggers and purpose before moving into SUPPORTED TYPES. A few phrases like 'cross-source identity spine' and 'which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond' are more elaborate than strictly necessary, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description still covers input formatting, supported entity types, ambiguity handling, failure behavior, and key response fields (`unresolved`, `figi_candidates`). An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret results correctly across the described edge cases.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters, but the description enriches them significantly: the `type` field's effect on returned identifier sets, the accepted input forms for `value`, and the explicit warning to pass only the entity name rather than the full noun phrase for bonds. These details materially reduce the risk of malformed 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?

The description opens with concrete natural-language triggers ('What's the ticker for…' / 'find the CIK for…') and states the core operation: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It enumerates supported entity types and identifier systems (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm), making its scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like validate_claim or compare_entities.

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?

It provides an explicit decision rule: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains when the tool will defer to `figi_candidates` instead of asserting a single result, and notes that using it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving an agent clear grounds for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

All Wayback 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in purpose, and the five polymarket_* tools all target prediction-market analysis. The presence of a broad Pipeworx data layer alongside Wayback-specific tools under one server name further blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: many follow verb_noun (get_snapshot, list_snapshots, resolve_entity, validate_claim), while others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, bet_research). Suffixes like _beta and _grounded are used inconsistently, and some names are long and descriptive while others are terse.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than what a Wayback Machine server should need, and most tools (Pipeworx data queries, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the Wayback Machine. The server's stated purpose appears narrow, but the tool set is bloated with unrelated functionality.

Completeness2/5

For the Wayback Machine domain, only three tools are relevant (get_capture_count, get_snapshot, list_snapshots), and obvious operations like saving/archiving a URL, comparing snapshots, or handling deleted captures are missing. The Pipeworx-related tools are broad but not clearly aligned with the Wayback theme, so the core purpose is under-served.

Resources