Skip to main content
Glama

Weatherapi

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?

The description discloses rich behavior beyond the annotations: it returns multiple identifiers from different sources, asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates on ambiguity, includes an 'unresolved' field for unresolvable identifiers, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and accepts ticker/CIK/ISIN/name as input. It also explains the ISIN-to-LEI mapping for non-US issuers. These are all valuable behavioral details the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) do not capture.

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 long, but every sentence carries operational value: the core purpose and 'Use FIRST' instruction are front-loaded, followed by type-specific details, edge cases, and the cascade note. It is dense and well-structured, though it could be broken into clearer sections for readability. It earns a 4 because it is appropriately sized for a complex tool without being bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly: it lists the identifiers returned (CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, etc.), explains the figi_candidates behavior for ambiguous matches, and mentions the unresolved field. It covers graceful degradation and the internal cascade. For a tool this complex, the description is remarkably complete.

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% and the schema already describes both parameters, but the description adds substantial extra meaning: for company, it explains that the input can be a ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name, and clarifies that for bonds only the issuer name should be passed, with a concrete example of what to avoid. This goes far beyond the schema's short descriptions, effectively compensating for any ambiguity and preventing common errors.

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 states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers), and lists the two supported types. It clearly distinguishes itself as the go-to tool for name-to-ID conversion, with examples of queries it handles. This differentiates it from sibling tools like entity_profile 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 gives an explicit directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains the internal cascade that replaces 2-3 manual lookups, and provides a concrete caution for bond queries (pass only the issuer name, not trailing security-class words). This tells the agent when and how to use it, and implicitly when not to (when an ID is already known).

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

All Weatherapi 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 near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in discovery, edge, and arbitrage roles. Company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case with underscores, which is a consistent base convention. However, the lexical pattern varies: bare single words (current, forecast, remember, forget) coexist with verb_noun compounds (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The lack of a uniform verb_noun structure makes the set less predictable, though still readable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is well into the 'too many' range, and the server's name promises weather while only 4 of 35 tools (current, forecast, astronomy, marine) are weather-related — an extreme mismatch between the declared purpose and the actual surface. The remaining 31 tools form a general data/prediction-market platform that would be better served under a different server name.

Completeness4/5

Judged by its actual (non-weather) domain, the set is quite complete: generic routed lookup, grounded answer mode, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, discovery, and feedback are all present. The weather subset covers current conditions, forecasts, marine, and astronomy, though it lacks historical weather and alert endpoints — a minor gap.

Resources