Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Allegheny

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` identifiers, source-labelled identifiers, ambiguous matches returning `figi_candidates`, and multi-endpoint cascading. There is no contradiction with the read-only, idempotent, 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 front-loaded with examples and a clear usage directive, and it is well-organized by type and caveats. However, the long parentheticals and dense run-on detail make it less crisp than it could be; every sentence is informative, but the structure could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does: `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, explicit `unresolved` identifiers, source labels, ownership data, and drug citation format. For a two-parameter, two-type tool with this complexity, the definition is effectively 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?

Even with 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds significant meaning: example values (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic names), the 'ISSUER exactly as printed' rule for bonds, the warning against passing the full noun phrase, and the ISIN-to-LEI resolution path. This goes far beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 natural language query examples and clearly states its function: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names the specific identifier sources (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and supported types, and is easily distinguished from siblings 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and provides concrete input formats for both supported types, including ambiguity behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Arcgis Allegheny 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and several Polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) blur together. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large set of data-query and prediction-market tools with unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are command-style (query_layer, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (layer_info, entity_profile), and others are bare verbs (remember, forget). The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server named 'Arcgis Allegheny', especially since only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS at all. The bulk of the tools address unrelated domains like Pipeworx data lookups and Polymarket betting, making the count excessive for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server focused on ArcGIS Allegheny County data, the surface is severely incomplete: only three read-only tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) cover the domain, and they lack operations like adding, updating, or deleting features. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated to GIS, so the server fails to provide a coherent or complete toolset for its stated purpose.

Resources