Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tigard

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: identifiers are labelled with their source, unresolved identifiers are returned under 'unresolved' rather than omitted, multiple matches return candidates, and LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully if external sources fail. There is no contradiction with 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 long and dense, but every clause carries meaningful routing or behavioral information, and the primary instruction is front-loaded. The lack of paragraph breaks makes it slightly harder to scan, but the content is high-value throughout.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: which identifiers come from which source (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), how ambiguity is represented, what is returned under 'unresolved', and how failures degrade. A caller has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already contains the entity-name-only warning for bonds. The description adds value by listing ISIN as an accepted company input and explaining the ISIN-to-LEI resolution path with a concrete example, which is absent from the schema's ticker/CIK/name list.

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 precise verb-object pair: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It gives concrete example queries (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI, ownership) and explicitly positions itself as the first tool to use when a name needs an ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains the correct behavior on ambiguous matches (return figi_candidates rather than asserting) and covers graceful degradation of enrichment sources. It does not name specific sibling tools to avoid or enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but the routing is clear enough.

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

All Arcgis Tigard 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the various ask_pipeworx variants and entity research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). The subtle differences between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are likely to cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use inconsistent patterns: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer) mixed with descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) and no clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (process, run) though those are absent here; overall naming is arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for an Arcgis Tigard server. The majority are generic Pipeworx data query tools (27+ tools) that have little to do with ArcGIS, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks ArcGIS-specific functionality. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant to ArcGIS; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx tools. Essential ArcGIS operations like editing, analysis, or visualization are missing, making the surface incomplete.

Resources