Skip to main content
Glama

Httpstatus

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers, internal cascading through several endpoints, and the policy of asserting nothing on ambiguous matches. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries operational content: usage trigger, input formats, ambiguity behavior, enrichment fallback, and source attribution. The key 'Use FIRST' guidance is front-loaded, and the supported types are clearly delimited rather than buried in prose.

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 compensates well by describing return semantics: resolved identifiers, source labels, unresolved array, figi_candidates on ambiguity, and the drug-specific RxCUI plus citation. It covers input constraints, failure behavior, and output expectations sufficiently for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important semantic depth: company input can be ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name; drug input accepts brand or generic name; the value should be the entity name only, with a concrete warning that trailing security-class words break the FIGI lookup. This materially helps an agent construct a valid call.

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 precise action: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers, and enumerates supported entity types (company, drug) plus the identifier systems involved (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm). It clearly distinguishes itself as the ID-resolution entry point that 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 gives an explicit directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains when the tool abstains (multiple instrument matches return figi_candidates rather than asserting) and notes it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving the agent a clear routing basis relative to sibling tools.

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

All Httpstatus 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, causing potential confusion. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are separate, but the overall set is diverse enough that agents can typically distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of camelCase (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt) and snake_case (http_status, list_http_statuses, list_subscriptions), with no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are descriptive, but the lack of a unified convention hurts predictability.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Httpstatus' that only has two HTTP-related tools. The large number spans data retrieval, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets, and more, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains but each is incomplete. HTTP status has lookup and list but no lifecycle. Memory tools are basic. Data retrieval is extensive but not exhaustive for any single domain. It's a broad but shallow collection.

Resources