entity-resolve
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
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose.
With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. The verb-based name 'resolve' fits a common naming pattern.
A single tool for entity resolution is borderline; the server's scope is narrow, but 1 tool falls outside the typical 3-15 range and may feel thin for more complex workflows.
The single tool covers the entire entity resolution workflow (blocking, scoring, merging, returning canonical records) with no obvious gaps for its stated domain.
Available Tools
1 toolresolveAInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| records | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It details the algorithm (blocking, scoring, matching) and states determinism and no LLM calls. However, it omits performance characteristics and error behavior, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information about the tool's function and behavior without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides algorithm transparency but insufficient parameter semantics and no usage guidance. It is reasonably complete for a deduplication tool but could add more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'threshold' parameter implicitly and the algorithm for matching, but does not detail the 'keys' parameter or the expected format of 'records'. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fuzzy-dedupe' and the resource 'list of records', explicitly describing the tool's function: deduplicating records into clusters. With no sibling tools, no further differentiation is needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the lack of sibling tools reduces the need. The description implies its use for deduplication tasks, but does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
resolve
Related MCP Connectors
Deterministic company, entity and location lookups for agents - per call, x402 or API key.
Find duplicate records in 30 seconds. Zero-config entity resolution, 97.2% F1 out of the box.
Dedupe, flatten and clean messy JSON rows (emails, phones, URLs, HTML) in one call, as JSON or CSV.
Search millions of x402 APIs for data, finance, validation, security, inventory, sync and automation
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server exposing 29 AI-powered Interzoid data quality APIs — company/name/address matching and deduplication, business intelligence, email trust scoring, data standardization, verification, translation, and more. Supports API key authentication and x402 crypto micropayments.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceFind professional email addresses from name + company domain. Tests 15+ patterns against MX records with confidence scoring, with pay-per-call via x402.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMultilingual name romanization lookup across Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese, and more. Resolves whether two name spellings refer to the same person — Chan/Chen/陳/陈, Hsu/Xu, Chou/Zhou — across Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Cantonese, Hokkien, and other romanization systems.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceResolves messy company, customer, and vendor names across CRM, ERP, and ITSM systems to canonical records using fuzzy matching, preventing AI agents from updating or creating wrong or duplicate records.5MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.