Skip to main content
Glama

Lyrics Ovh

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 mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returns unresolved identifiers explicitly, and labels every identifier with its source. It also discloses the ambiguity behavior for non-equity instruments. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and examples before diving into behavior. Every sentence carries operational detail, and the supported-types structure helps navigation. It is somewhat dense and contains nested parentheses that could be cleaner, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does: each identifier's source, unresolved identifiers, figi_candidates on ambiguity, drug citation format, and fallback behavior when external enrichment fails. It covers both supported types and the main edge cases an agent would encounter.

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 adds high-value semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that entity names must be passed exactly as printed, warns against including trailing security-class words, explains that ISINs resolve to legal entities via GLEIF, and details the accepted formats for company and drug values. This directly prevents likely invocation mistakes.

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-phrase examples and states the exact job: resolving a user-spoken name to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require. It names supported entity types (company, drug) and the identifier systems involved (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It implicitly sets it apart from profile or research tools by positioning this as the ID-lookup entry point.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and it describes the accepted input forms for each type. It also explains when resolution will not assert a single answer (ambiguous instrument names returning figi_candidates). It does not name specific sibling tools to prefer instead, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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

All Lyrics Ovh 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route to the same 5,564 tools, differing only in grounding behavior. suggest and lyrics both look up music but in different ways; suggest is broader while lyrics is exact. The core tools are distinct, but the multiple pipeworx variants and music tools create ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent. Most tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), but several use verb phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence) and some use short nouns (lyrics, suggest). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; 'ask_pipeworx' variants mix imperative with domain words, and 'recall'/'remember' are verbs without objects.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server covers a wide domain (company research, prediction markets, news, weather, lyrics, memory, subscriptions, etc.). While this is many tools, each has a specific purpose and the variety matches the stated 'universal router' / 'thousands of data sources' value prop. It could be trimmed slightly, but the count is justified by the breadth.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose: unstructured lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep multi-source research (deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage scanning, memory, subscriptions, and even feedback/governance tools. It covers all common patterns in data retrieval and has distinct tools for edge cases, making it hard to find obvious gaps.

Resources