Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Dukescounty

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining ambiguous-name behavior, the `figi_candidates` fallback, explicit `unresolved` reporting, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, and internal multi-endpoint cascading. None of this conflicts with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 and dense, but it is structured with query examples, a SUPPORTED TYPES split, and failure/fallback details. Every sentence contributes useful information for a genuinely complex multi-source tool, though tighter formatting would improve scannability.

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 must explain return semantics, and it does: it lists the identifier types, ownership data, FIGI candidates, unresolved fields, and citation behavior. It also covers accepted inputs and failure modes, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret the result correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance: it clarifies what each entity type resolves to, emphasizes passing the entity name only, and explains why trailing security-class words break FIGI matching. This adds value beyond the schema's own 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 states a specific verb and resource: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers. It includes concrete query examples and enumerates supported types, clearly distinguishing this tool from likely 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?

"Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID" gives explicit decision guidance, and the description clarifies which inputs each type accepts. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the conditional context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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

All Arcgis Dukescounty 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes that require reading long descriptions to separate. The server name promises ArcGIS Dukes County but most tools are unrelated, making the overall selection space confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some noun-ish (entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending), some bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), and some long compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Readable overall, but no strong consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's apparent ArcGIS Dukes County purpose. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory/utility toolkit, creating a severe scope mismatch with the server's name.

Completeness2/5

For the named Dukes County GIS domain, the surface is minimal—dataset discovery, schema, and queries—with no spatial operations or editing, though read-only access may be acceptable. For the broader Pipeworx functionality it is fairly comprehensive, but that is not what the server name advertises, leaving the set incomplete relative to its apparent identity.

Resources