Skip to main content
Glama

Omdb

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?

Even with readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: internal cascading through several endpoints, graceful degradation if GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` output for unresolvable identifiers, source labelling, and ambiguity handling via `figi_candidates`. This goes far beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict exact outcomes.

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 purpose and example queries, then organized into supported types and caveats. It is long and dense, but nearly every sentence adds needed behavioral or parameter context; a little trimming could improve scannability without losing value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input forms, output fields like `figi_candidates` and `unresolved`, failure/degradation behavior, source provenance, and edge cases like ISIN-to-LEI mapping. An agent has enough context to call resolve_entity correctly and interpret the result without additional lookups.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description enriches both parameters substantially: it enumerates accepted input forms for `type` (company/drug) and `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name, brand/generic), and adds critical formatting constraints such as passing the exact issuer name, not the full noun phrase. This materially reduces mis-invocation risk.

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 phrasings and states a precise verb+resource: resolve a spoken name to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. It clearly names the two supported types, company and drug, and positions itself as the 'FIRST' lookup step among a large sibling set, distinguishing it from research/profile tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 gives strong when-to-use guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' plus numerous example query forms and supported types. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid or state when not to use it, aside from the bond-issuer caveat about not appending security-class words, but the routing guidance is clear enough.

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

All Omdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions, and bet_research overlapping with polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The diverse tool set lacks clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but verb patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, remember) while others start with nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). Names vary widely in length and descriptiveness.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Omdb', which implies a movie database. Most tools are unrelated to movies, indicating poor scoping for the server's purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the OMDb domain, only search and retrieval tools exist, with no create/update/delete operations. Overall, the tool set feels like a random collection with significant gaps relative to any coherent domain.

Resources