Skip to main content
Glama

Ensembl

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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved fields, source-labelled identifiers, internal cascading lookups, and coverage of non-US issuers through ISIN-to-LEI mapping. This is rich, accurate behavioral context that annotations alone could not provide.

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 and dense, and some sentences are run-ons with nested clauses. However, almost every detail earns its place given the tool's complexity, and the opening examples + priority statement front-load the most critical information. Slightly tighter organization would improve it.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains returned identifiers, candidate lists on ambiguity, unresolved fields, source labelling, and citation format for drug lookups. It also covers edge cases such as non-ticker securities and ISIN-to-LEI resolution. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it defines what counts as a valid value with examples (AAPL, 0000320193, 'ozempic'), warns against passing full noun phrases for bonds, and explains how ISINs resolve to legal entities. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 the tool's job: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It gives concrete query examples ('What's the ticker for…'), names the supported entity types, and makes clear this is the go-to when you have a name but need an ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup or xrefs.

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 says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and details both supported types with acceptable inputs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the use case is unambiguous and strongly prioritizes this tool over siblings.

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

All Ensembl 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions, while polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyze prediction markets. An agent would struggle to pick the correct tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the style is inconsistent: some are bare nouns (sequence, variation, homology), some are single verbs (lookup, recall, forget), and others are long descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). There is no consistent verb_noun or resource_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a coherent server, and nearly all of them are unrelated to the server's stated name ('Ensembl') — only about 7 tools (lookup, lookup_symbol, sequence, variation, vep, xrefs, homology) actually belong to the Ensembl domain. The rest form several unrelated clusters (Pipeworx data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For an Ensembl server, the surface is thin: it covers ID lookup, sequence retrieval, variants, VEP, xrefs, and homology, but omits other core Ensembl functionality such as gene trees, alignments, regulation, expression, and assembly data. Meanwhile the many non-Ensembl tools don't form a complete domain of their own — they are a grab bag of unrelated utilities.

Resources