Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sncf

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?

Although annotations already declare this operation safe and read-only, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: internal cascade of lookup endpoints, graceful degradation if GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, and ISIN-to-LEI mapping. 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 front-loaded with user intents, usage rule, and supported types; nearly every sentence carries operational guidance. It is quite long with sprawling parentheticals, which keeps it from being truly concise, but it does not waste words.

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 specifies returned identifiers per type, source labels, figi_candidates for ambiguous bonds, an explicit unresolved field, and drug citation format. It also covers non-US entities, ambiguity, and enrichment degradation, making it safe to call across scenarios.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains exactly what formats `value` accepts per entity type, warns that bond lookups require the issuer name exactly as printed, and cautions that trailing security-class words match nothing. This materially improves correct invocation.

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 concrete user phrasings and sharply states the tool's job: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. It enumerates supported types and the identifiers returned for each, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_profile or validate_claim.

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 instructs agents to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing a clear selection rule. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools by name or state when not to use it, but the rule is sufficiently directional.

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

All Data Sncf 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may still select the wrong tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-initial (dataset_info, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns. The snake_case convention is consistent, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded relative to a clear scope. Many tools are meta-tools (memory, subscription management, feedback) that inflate the count. A more focused set of 15-20 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of domains: structured data queries, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and SNCF-specific data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated weather or sports tools), but the universal ask_pipeworx compensates. Overall, users can accomplish most tasks without dead ends.

Resources