Skip to main content
Glama

Energi Data Dk

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, returning figi_candidates on ambiguous matches rather than asserting, explicitly listing unresolved identifiers, and noting that internal cascading replaces several manual lookups. This exceeds what annotations convey.

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 long but front-loaded with immediately useful examples and the core use instruction. Each paragraph earns its place by adding edge-case behavior, though some editorial commentary (e.g., 'which is the correct answer to...') could be trimmed without losing needed information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, two entity types, input variations, multiple identifier sources, and ambiguity handling, the description is remarkably complete. It explains matching behavior, failure modes, unresolved identifiers, source labeling, and return content for drug lookups, compensating well for the absence of an output schema.

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 still adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It gives concrete value examples, explains exactly how to phrase bond issuer names versus full noun phrases, enumerates accepted company inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), and clarifies drug value semantics. This is a model of parameter clarification.

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 query examples, then states the precise function: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input. This clearly distinguishes resolve_entity as the identifier-lookup tool among its siblings, such as entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 strong usage context: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and it details which entity types and input forms are accepted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Energi Data Dk 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 tools form overlapping clusters that are hard for an agent to distinguish: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all cover factual/research lookups, and the five Polymarket tools also overlap heavily. ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, making misselection essentially guaranteed in that pair. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between many tools remain unclear at the set level.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tool names are snake_case and mostly follow readable verb_noun or domain-specific patterns, such as ask_pipeworx*, resolve_entity, validate_claim, and polymarket_*. Minor deviations exist — bare verbs like remember/recall/forget/subscribe and noun-style names like spot_prices/co2_intensity — but there is no mixed casing and the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped server, and the mismatch is much worse because only three tools (co2_intensity, spot_prices, query_dataset) relate to the advertised Energi Data DK domain. The other 31 tools appear to belong to an unrelated general-purpose Pipeworx platform, so the count is not appropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the stated Energi Data DK domain, energy data access is partially covered: two dedicated tools plus query_dataset as a generic escape hatch for all ~100 datasets prevents hard dead ends, but there are no typed tools for most of those datasets and no energy-specific monitoring/alerting. If the real intended domain is the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is much stronger, but then the server name is misleading.

Resources