Skip to main content
Glama

Mesh

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, the explicit `unresolved` output instead of silent omission, internal cascading across multiple endpoints, and the non-equity coverage of FIGI lookups. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage rule, and nearly every clause carries useful information. However, it is written as a single dense block with very long parentheticals, which reduces scannability even if nothing is pure filler.

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 full burden of explaining return semantics, and it does so thoroughly: EDGAR identifiers, LEI ownership data, FIGI, RxCUI/ingredient/brand, citation links, and explicit unresolved results. It also covers failure modes and input variants, making the tool safely callable without external context.

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?

Despite the schema already having 100% parameter description coverage, the tool description adds crucial invocation guidance: pass the entity name exactly as printed, never include the full noun phrase for bonds, ISIN input resolves to the issuing legal entity, and each type has its own input/output contract. This materially reduces the chance of calling the tool with a malformed value.

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 identifies the action—'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input'—and the resources involved: ticker, CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI. It also states the two supported entity types and the 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' rule, which gives it a distinct identity among siblings.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: use it first when you have a name but need an identifier. It also documents accepted input forms for both types (company and drug). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use instead, so it stops short of complete when-not guidance.

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

All Mesh 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

The three ask_pipeworx variants are a genuine confusion risk — ask_pipeworx_beta is currently described as identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in extraction strictness. search_descriptors and resolve_term also overlap heavily (both map a term to MeSH descriptor IDs). The six Polymarket tools are differentiated by rich descriptions but still form a dense cluster where misselection is plausible.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean verb_qualifier pattern (ask_, bet_, compare_, resolve_, search_, validate_) with the brand as a namespace (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_*). Minor deviations exist: pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending lead with a noun, the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) are bare verbs, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a brand name rather than a resource noun — but the overall pattern stays predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the threshold where a set feels heavy, and the bloat is visible: three near-identical ask_pipeworx routers and a six-tool Polymarket suite dominate. Several tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, bet_research) feel like accreted one-offs rather than part of a coherent surface. The broad platform purpose justifies some breadth, but the count is inflated by redundant variants.

Completeness4/5

The core purpose — universal access to authoritative structured data — is well covered via the router, grounded mode, deep_research, entity/profile/compare/validate wrappers, and discovery tools. The subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/alerts) and memory (remember/recall/forget) have no dead ends. Minor gaps exist: non-polymarket prediction-market workflows lack the depth of the Polymarket cluster, and the single-purpose niche tools fit awkwardly, but agents won't hit dead ends.

Resources