Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab Public

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context: internal cascading across multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` fields, source labeling for each identifier, and the policy of returning `figi_candidates` rather than asserting an ambiguous match.

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 dense and purposeful; examples are front-loaded, supported types are clearly separated, and caveats are grouped logically. While it could be tightened, every substantive clause adds operational value, and the structure aids scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers return behavior for ambiguity, unresolved identifiers, enrichment-service failures, and non-US issuers. For a two-parameter tool with complex internal behavior, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that `value` should be the entity name only, that bond issuers should be passed exactly as printed, and that ambiguous instrument names resolve to candidates rather than a single FIGI. The `type` parameter's enum values are also expanded with examples and expected input formats.

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 phrases and states the tool's core job: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers such as CIK, LEI, RxCUI, and FIGI. It enumerates supported entity types and explicitly positions itself as the lookup step when a name needs an ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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 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,' giving a clear trigger. It also provides negative input guidance for bonds ('never the question's full noun phrase') and explains when multiple candidates are returned instead of a single assertion, making selection and invocation unambiguous.

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

All Gitlab Public 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The vast majority of tools are unrelated to GitLab and cover overlapping domains (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools, memory tools). Only three GitLab-specific tools exist, and they are distinct from each other, but overall the set is highly heterogeneous and ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of conventions: some are snake_case (ask_pipeworx, search_issues), some are compound nouns (get_project, list_subscriptions), and a few are single words (forget, recall). There is no consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

Despite the server name 'Gitlab Public', only 3 out of 34 tools are related to GitLab. The remaining 31 tools are a collection of unrelated services (Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility). This is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its tool composition.

Completeness1/5

For a GitLab public server, essential tools like project creation, deletion, user management, and merge request handling are completely missing. The Pipeworx tools, while numerous, lack a clear cohesive scope and overlap significantly with each other.

Resources