Skip to main content
Glama

Medicare Coverage

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: multi-source identity resolution, graceful LEI/FIGI degradation, ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates, explicit `unresolved` reporting, source labeling, and internal cascading across multiple lookup endpoints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 very long and dense, with a run-on first sentence, but nearly every clause carries necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core use case and alternatives, and later details cover drug entities, return behavior, and failure modes. It would benefit from tighter structure, but it earns its length given tool 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns for both entity types, including specific identifiers, labels, unresolved fields, and candidate lists. It covers edge cases like non-ticker instruments, ambiguous matches, non-US issuers, and enrichment unavailability. For a tool with this complexity, the contextual coverage is thorough.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), explains how ISINs resolve via GLEIF, and gives explicit guidance on passing an entity name only for bonds, including what trailing words to avoid. This materially helps an agent construct correct parameter values.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and clearly defines the resource: user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers. It explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which distinguishes its primary purpose from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities. Supported types and examples further clarify scope.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and provides many example phrasings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the clear context and central role in the tool ecosystem make the usage guidance strong.

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

All Medicare Coverage 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

The server mixes Medicare-specific tools with many unrelated general-purpose tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, remember), and there are multiple similar ask_pipeworx variants. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool is appropriate for a given task without confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a medicare_ prefix with underscores, others use generic verbs like forget, recall, or compound names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research. There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb structure.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on 'Medicare Coverage'. Many tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_dependency) are unrelated to Medicare and should be in separate servers, inflating the count and diluting focus.

Completeness4/5

The Medicare-specific tools cover a broad range: NCDs, LCDs, NCAs, enrollment, DME, Part D, hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and provider data. Minor gaps include Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement, but the coverage is largely comprehensive.

Resources