Skip to main content
Glama

Leadconnector

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond these by disclosing internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailable, explicit handling of unresolved identifiers, and returning figi_candidates for ambiguous matches. This enriches the behavioral model substantially without contradicting the annotations.

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 densely informative, front-loading the core purpose and examples. It is organized into clear sections (supported types, input instructions, degradation policies). While a bit verbose, every sentence contributes functional guidance, so the length is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema. It covers input specifics, output characteristics (labeled sources, unresolved list), edge cases (ambiguous matches), failure modes (degradation), and performance expectations (replaces multiple lookups). Given the tool's complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds substantial meaning: for 'type' it explains what each enum value resolves and the data sources; for 'value' it gives precise examples, warns against full noun phrases, and clarifies that for bonds it expects the issuer name. This is material guidance beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 resolves a user-spoken name to canonical identifiers, enumerates supported types (company, drug) and specific identifiers (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI). It gives concrete query examples ("What's the ticker for…") that anchor the purpose. It distinguishes itself as the go-to for name-to-ID mapping, which separates 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 Guidelines4/5

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,' establishing a clear trigger condition. It provides detailed input formatting rules (e.g., pass issuer exactly as printed, avoid trailing security-class words) and explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusivity guidance.

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

All Leadconnector 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, or bet_research and polymarket_edges. The mix of CRM, data, and betting tools creates confusion about which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx) with prefixed names (leadconnector_*) and no clear pattern. Some names are vague (forget, remember) while others are specific.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set feels overstuffed for a server named 'Leadconnector'. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., Polymarket, Pipeworx), and the CRM subset is too small to justify the count.

Completeness2/5

For the Leadconnector CRM domain, only basic read operations are provided; missing create, update, delete for contacts, campaigns, and opportunities. The non-CRM tools are comprehensive but don't match the server's name.

Resources