Skip to main content
Glama

Clickup

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, explicit unresolved fields, ambiguous match handling via figi_candidates, and source labelling of identifiers. No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent annotations exists.

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 dense and heavily front-loaded with examples and the primary usage directive. Every clause adds meaningful edge-case or behavior information, though the long single-block structure with many parentheticals reduces readability slightly.

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 values, and it does so thoroughly: CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership, FIGI, figi_candidates, unresolved, RxCUI, ingredient, brand, and citation. It also covers multi-source behavior, edge cases, and failure modes, making it fully actionable.

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 input schema already covers both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining what each type returns, expanding accepted company inputs to include ISIN, describing the ambiguous-name behavior, and clarifying the entity-name-only requirement for value.

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 and resource: resolving user-spoken names into canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. It clearly differentiates this from siblings by framing it as the identity lookup step and enumerating the two entity types and identifier sources.

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 an explicit trigger: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," supported by many natural-language query examples. It does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, 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 Clickup 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools. Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case and camelCase conventions. ClickUp tools use 'clickup_' prefix while Pipeworx tools have varied patterns (ask_, scan_, validate_, etc.). No unified convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Clickup', with only 6 ClickUp-specific tools. The remaining 29 are from Pipeworx, which is unrelated. The count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The ClickUp integration is incomplete, missing basic CRUD operations like update and delete tasks. The Pipeworx side is comprehensive but not relevant to the server's name. For a ClickUp server, coverage is poor.

Resources