Skip to main content
Glama

Obis

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?

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral context: graceful LEI/FIGI degradation, explicit unresolved identifiers, source-labelled results, and ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates without asserting a single answer. Nothing contradicts 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 nearly every sentence carries operational detail that an agent needs, and the trigger phrases are front-loaded. It could be tightened with better structure, such as bullets for the supported types, but the density is justified for a tool with heterogeneous sources and edge cases.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining results, and it does: CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, unresolved fields, figi_candidates, source labels, and degradation behavior are all disclosed. Both supported types and their input variants are covered well enough for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds substantial value by explaining the exact value formats for both types, the entity-name-only rule, and why trailing security-class words break FIGI lookups. This goes well beyond the schema and meaningfully reduces misuse.

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 names an exact verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It is further scoped by 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and by enumerating supported entity types (company, drug), which clearly separates it from profile or comparison tools among the 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and documents accepted input formats and edge cases like ambiguous bond issuers. It does not name a fallback or alternative tool for out-of-scope cases, so the when-not guidance is somewhat implicit rather than fully explicit.

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

All Obis 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes and the descriptions are unusually thorough, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and several discovery/prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage, discover_tools vs suggest_questions) occupy overlapping territory. An agent could reasonably route to the wrong variant despite the documentation.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is lowercase snake_case with a leading verb (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, resolve_entity), which makes the set predictable. A few noun-first outliers like pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and polymarket_edge_tracker are minor deviations rather than a broken pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the coherence sweet spot for an MCP server, and much of that count is made up of meta-wrappers and convenience variants around the same Pipeworx router. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the surface still feels heavy for a single named server.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side is very complete: lookups, grounded verification, research, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction-market fill checks, subscriptions, and memory all have lifecycle coverage. However, the server is named Obis and only find_occurrences, get_statistics, and get_taxon serve that domain, leaving obvious marine-biodiversity operations like occurrence detail, dataset listing, and download paths missing.

Resources