Skip to main content
Glama

Mydisease

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, detailing multi-source cascade behavior, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit unresolved identifier reporting, and candidate-returning behavior for ambiguous matches. No contradiction exists with the readOnly/idempotent 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 dense and front-loaded with the most important usage guidance, but it runs as one long unbroken paragraph with many nested clauses. All content is valuable, but clearer structuring would improve scannability without losing information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: supported types, input formats, source behavior, ambiguity handling, unresolved identifier disclosure, and failure degradation. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantic detail: what 'value' should contain for different types, the ISIN-to-LEI behavior, the warning to pass only the entity name and not a full noun phrase for bonds, and examples like 'AAPL' and 'metformin'.

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 tool's function: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical identifiers required by other tools. It lists supported entity types and distinguishes this resolver role from profile/compare siblings by positioning it as the first step whenever an ID is needed.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' The description also explains supported types, what inputs are accepted, and behavior when a name is ambiguous, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Mydisease 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research/query entry points overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research sit on the same routing core, and validate_claim/bet_research/entity_profile all wrap lookup-and-analyze behavior. The detailed descriptions help within specialized clusters, but the central ask_pipeworx family alone creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case and several families are consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget), but the overall set mixes bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun composites with no global pattern (disease, metadata, query, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). It is readable but not predictable across the full 34-tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25+ threshold and the set bundles several distinct domains—disease ontology, Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions—into one server. Each subfamily may be justified, but the combined surface is heavy and makes tool selection harder than the underlying tasks require.

Completeness4/5

The disease domain has query/disease/metadata for search-and-fetch read coverage, and the broader research side has lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory lifecycle tools. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, no disease browsing/pagination), but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources