Skip to main content
Glama

Maryland Open Data

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context: cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit 'unresolved' reporting instead of silent omission, and ISIN-to-LEI resolution for non-US issuers. No contradiction with 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 somewhat long, but it is actively front-loaded with user-phrase examples and the 'Use FIRST' directive. Most of the long parenthetical content adds necessary behavioral detail rather than padding, though some sentences are run-on and would benefit from splitting.

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 telling the agent what to expect back, and it does: CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership hierarchy, FIGI, figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers, and RxCUI/ingredient/brand citation for drugs. It also covers failure modes and multi-endpoint behavior, making the tool fully invocable without additional lookups.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including detailed examples and the ENTITY-NAME-ONLY caveat, so the baseline is 3. The description adds additional semantic value beyond the schema by explaining accepted inputs include ISIN, how type-specific resolution works, and that ambiguity produces 'figi_candidates'. This justifies a slightly higher score.

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 specific action: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical official identifiers, and backs it with concrete example queries and supported types ('company', 'drug'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's role by noting the IDs it produces are what 'other tools require as input', setting it apart from siblings like entity_profile.

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 directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains when the tool resolves correctly (including non-equity instruments) and what happens when a match is ambiguous via 'figi_candidates'. It does not name a sibling tool as the alternative for when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when-not statement.

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

All Maryland Open Data 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct in purpose, but the server name 'Maryland Open Data' conflicts with the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction market tools). This creates ambiguity about the server's actual domain, making it hard for agents to know what to expect.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others are plain (datasets, query), and some are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded). No consistent verb_noun pattern emerges, leading to a chaotic feel.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to Maryland Open Data, suggesting scope creep. The server tries to be a general-purpose data platform but is named after a specific dataset, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Maryland Open Data subset is minimal (3 tools: datasets, metadata, query), lacking update/delete/CRUD operations. The broader set includes many query and analysis tools, but the server's stated purpose is not fully covered.

Resources