Skip to main content
Glama

Deezer

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: internal cascade through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, the assertion of nothing with figi_candidates on ambiguous matches, explicit `unresolved` reporting, and ISIN-to-legal-entity mapping behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with examples and the core guidance, but is dense and contains long nested parentheticals (e.g., the FIGI multi-match explanation) that reduce scannability. Every sentence carries useful information, but the structure could be tightened for an agent to parse quickly.

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, and it does: it lists all identifier outputs per type, names the figi_candidates and unresolved fields, describes ownership data, provides a citation format for RxNorm, and covers input constraints. For a two-parameter tool with this level of underlying complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: ISIN accepted for company, exact-ticker-map vs name-search behavior for FIGI, the requirement to pass only the issuer name (with a concrete warning against trailing security-class words), and the brand/generic input handling for drug. This materially helps an agent construct correct calls.

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 verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input. It differentiates itself from siblings by positioning it as the entry-point lookup tool, and enumerates supported types (company, drug) and output identifiers (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and explains when it replaces multiple manual lookups. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have an ID, use entity_profile), leaving a small inference gap.

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

All Deezer 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all route queries to structured data), and the set mixes Deezer music tools with an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket suite. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool for a given request.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: single-word nouns (album, artist, track, chart), verb_noun snake_case (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), and verbose multi-concept names (scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

37 tools for a server named 'Deezer' is far beyond a music API scope; the overwhelming majority are unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is an extreme mismatch between the server name and the tool surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Deezer music domain, the surface is incomplete (no playlists, user library, lyrics, or radio), while the many unrelated tools each cover only fragments of their domains. The overall set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.

Resources