Skip to main content
Glama

Close Crm

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit labeling of unresolved identifiers, source attribution for each identifier, and internal cascading through multiple endpoints. This is all consistent with the 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 front-loaded with example queries and a clear purpose statement. It is a single long paragraph, but the structure using 'SUPPORTED TYPES' and semicolon-separated details helps digestibility. Some extra detail (e.g., the pipeworx citation URI) is slightly verbose but still informative.

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 full burden of explaining return behavior. It thoroughly covers returned identifiers, their sources, unresolved identifier handling, non-US issuer coverage, and degradation behavior. This makes the tool's behavior fully predictable for an agent.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds rich meaning beyond the raw definitions. It explains the 'company' and 'drug' types in detail, clarifies accepted input formats for 'value' (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), and gives concrete examples such as 'AAPL' and '0000320193.' This goes far beyond the schema's terse 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It provides concrete example queries and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it produces IDs needed by other tools, not a profile or comparison.

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?

Excellent guidance is given with 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains the two supported entity types and their specific resolution behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it stops 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 Close Crm 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

Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.

Resources