Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Fuzzy entity resolution and dedupe for names, addresses, and company records. $0.02/call via x402.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion or overlap with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool is named 'resolve', which is clear and descriptive of its function, and there is no inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for entity resolution is borderline; while it is self-contained, typical use cases might benefit from additional tools for configuration or inspection.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core entity resolution workflow (deduplication, scoring, merging) but lacks customization options for thresholds or blocking parameters, which are minor gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
resolveAInspect

Fuzzy-dedupe a list of records into clusters of likely-duplicate entities. Blocks by normalized token prefix, scores with Jaro-Winkler + token-set matching (exact on email/phone), unions matches above threshold, and returns a merged canonical record per cluster with a confidence score. Deterministic, no LLM calls.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNo
recordsYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the algorithm: blocking by normalized token prefix, scoring with Jaro-Winkler and token-set matching, exact matching on email/phone, union above threshold, and returning merged canonical records with confidence scores. No annotations are present, so this covers the behavioral burden.

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?

The description is two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second details the algorithm. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the algorithm but omits the output format details and does not explain all parameters (e.g., 'keys'). It is somewhat incomplete for a data-processing tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description references the 'threshold' parameter indirectly but does not explain the 'keys' parameter or the structure of 'records' and 'options'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide parameter-level details; it falls short.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fuzzy-dedupe a list of records into clusters of likely-duplicate entities.' The verb 'dedupe' and the resource 'list of records' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on how the tool works (blocking, scoring, merging) and notes it is deterministic with no LLM calls, hinting at when to use. However, without sibling tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources