Skip to main content
Glama

Doffin

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation (EDGAR identifiers still return if GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailable), and explicitly states what happens when an identifier cannot be resolved (listed under `unresolved` rather than omitted). This is valuable beyond the annotation hints.

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 information-rich, front-loading the purpose with example queries and a clear 'Use FIRST' directive. It covers multiple examples, supported types, input formats, and fallback behavior while remaining mostly organized and readable. Slightly long due to the parenthetical examples, but every sentence adds useful detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple lookup endpoints, multiple identifier standards, two entity types), the description is quite complete. It explains return behavior, input validation nuances, and fallback availability. No output schema exists, and the description does not fully enumerate the exact return fields, but it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly for the stated use cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'value' should be the entity name only, warns against including trailing security-class words for bonds, and explains how ticker, CIK, and ISIN inputs are interpreted. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), and enumerates example queries and supported types (company, drug). It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting it replaces 2-3 manual lookups and returns identifiers other tools require as input.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and gives detailed per-type guidance including what inputs are accepted (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name, drug name) and what variants are supported. It also explains when to use it over alternatives by framing it as the preliminary lookup step for other tools.

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

All Doffin 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/deep_research/validate_claim overlap for factual research. Polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and bet_research also all surface betting opportunities, while ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence serve nearly the same purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and mostly snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: doffin_* and polymarket_* use domain-prefixed nouns, ask_pipeworx* uses verb+product, and remember/recall/forget/subscribe are bare verbs. There is no single predictable verb_noun convention, though each internal cluster is somewhat consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server named Doffin, and only three tools actually relate to Norwegian procurement. The remaining surface is mostly general Pipeworx data access, prediction-market analysis, and memory utilities, which feels like several servers bundled under one misleading name.

Completeness3/5

For Doffin read-only access, search + recent + notice detail covers the core workflow well. However, the server's actual domain is fragmented across procurement, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions, which makes coverage difficult to reason about and leaves minor gaps such as no subscription update capability.

Resources