Skip to main content
Glama

Bhagavad Gita

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it reveals significant behavior: cascading lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, non-assertion with figi_candidates on ambiguous matches, explicit unresolved fields, and source-labeling of identifiers. This is rich, non-obvious context that materially affects how an agent interprets results.

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 but front-loaded with the core purpose and 'Use FIRST' guidance, and it is organized by supported type and behavioral caveats. It is information-dense, though the long parentheticals and repeated source details could be tightened without losing value.

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 bears the burden of explaining return behavior, and it covers identifiers returned, source labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates disambiguation, and failure degradation. For a complicated two-type tool with multiple upstream sources, this is sufficient for an agent to call it and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: examples for ticker/CIK/name, brand vs generic drug names, and a crucial warning to pass the entity name only—not the full noun phrase—with an explanation of why trailing security-class words fail.

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 user-phrase examples and explicitly states it 'resolve[s] a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names supported entity types and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the first step when an ID is needed.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and notes it 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups.' It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like entity_profile or compare_entities, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Bhagavad Gita 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
Disambiguation4/5

Individual tools have detailed descriptions and mostly distinct purposes, but the mix of domains (scripture, finance, data lookup) could confuse an agent about which tool to choose for a given task. However, within each subdomain, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). The mix of snake_case with varied starting parts makes naming unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 23 tools but only 3 related to the server's stated purpose (Bhagavad Gita), the tool count is severely mismatched. The vast majority belong to data analytics and finance, making the set feel bloated and mis-scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a Bhagavad Gita server, only list_chapters, get_chapter, and get_verse are provided, missing obvious features like search, commentary comparison, or multiple translations. The other tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving it extremely incomplete.

Resources