Skip to main content
Glama

climate

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

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, the description discloses that each call cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, that enrichment degrades gracefully if GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, and that ambiguous matches intentionally return figi_candidates rather than guessing. It also explains source labelling and explicit unresolved output, all valuable behavioral context an agent cannot infer from schema or 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 dense and heavily parenthetical, which reduces scannability. However, it is front-loaded with usage examples and nearly every clause carries semantic weight, making the length justified for a tool with this much multi-source behavioral complexity.

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 effectively explains return content: canonical identifiers per source, figi_candidates in ambiguous cases, unresolved items, and graceful degradation. It also covers ownership queries, non-equity instruments, and drug lookups; the agent has enough context to call it correctly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial parameter-level meaning: accepted input shapes per type, the 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule, and the concrete bond-name example showing what not to pass. This goes well beyond the schema's basic property descriptions and materially improves invocation correctness.

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 clearly states a specific action—'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input'—and enumerates the supported entity types and identifier sets. The intent-matching examples ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…') make it immediately distinguishable from sibling profiling/research tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is a clear trigger condition, and it gives edge-case usage guidance for ambiguous bond names and unresolved identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name a specific alternative tool, stopping just short of full exclusions.

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

All climate 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple query-router tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all serve as entry points into the same underlying data, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily mis-select.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, get_climate_projection, resolve_entity), but conventions are mixed: pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and recent_changes are noun-first/non-imperative, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a verb-plus-variant-suffix style. The pattern is predictable enough to navigate but not consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and the server name 'climate' does not match the broad data-research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and web-utility scope actually covered. Several tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools/suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners), which would reduce cognitive load without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

As a general data-access and research surface, the tool set is quite complete: it covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, recent changes, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feedback, and tool discovery. Minor gaps exist — the climate-specific coverage is limited to projections and model comparison despite the server name, and there is no direct tool to page through the full catalog — but for its inferred broad purpose there are no major dead ends.

Resources