Skip to main content
Glama

Youtube

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful runtime behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI are unavailable, internal cascading of lookup endpoints, ambiguous-match behavior returning figi_candidates, and explicit unresolved fields for failed identifications. It also states that identifiers are source-labelled, adding decision-relevant context. No statement contradicts the readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, or non-destructive annotations.

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 front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and example triggers before the detailed behavior. It is long, with heavy parentheticals and some redundancy with the schema, but the detail is almost entirely relevant and earns its place for such a complex dual-type resolution tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior and does so for the key cases: source-labelled identifiers, figi_candidates for ambiguous instruments, and unresolved for failures. It also covers edge cases like non-US issuers via the ISIN path. A full JSON response shape is still not described, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining how type selects different output contracts (company identity spine vs drug RxCUI), how an ISIN maps to the issuing legal entity, and why full issuer noun phrases should not be passed as value. These nuances are not inferable from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action — resolving a user-spoken name into canonical identifiers like CIK, LEI, ticker, and RxCUI — and supports it with concrete example queries. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as entity_profile or compare_entities, so it falls just short of the 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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?

The description gives explicit triggering context ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and enumerates supported entity types and input forms, including edge cases like ISINs and non-equity instruments. It does not say when not to use it or name a preferred alternative for a different need, stopping at clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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

All Youtube 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
Disambiguation3/5

There is meaningful overlap among the ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and polymarket_* tools, but the descriptions do draw fairly clear boundaries between them. The five yt_* tools are distinct and easy to tell apart, though the unrelated Pipeworx cluster makes the overall set feel muddier than it should.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable snake_case, and there are coherent prefixes like yt_ and polymarket_, but the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, deep_research), and API-like names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt). The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Youtube' identity. The actual YouTube surface is only five tools, while 31 tools belong to a different Pipeworx/Polymarket domain.

Completeness2/5

For a YouTube-focused server, the yt_* tools cover search, channel info, video details, and comments, but miss obvious surfaces like playlists, transcripts, subscriptions, uploads, and video updates. The large non-YouTube tool collection does not fill these gaps; it only makes the server feel mis-scoped.

Resources