Skip to main content
Glama

Onedrive

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?

Despite already having readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting instead of omission, returning `figi_candidates` when a name matches multiple instruments, source-labeling of every identifier, and internal cascade replacing 2-3 manual lookups. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and trigger, and most of its length earns its place given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema. Some repetition and exhaustive parenthetical examples could be trimmed, but the structure keeps the immediate 'when to use' information first.

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 full responsibility for explaining return semantics, and it does so thoroughly: resolved identifiers, unresolved items, multiple-candidate handling, source attribution, graceful degradation, and input formats. Nothing essential for an agent to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, the description significantly enriches both parameters: it enumerates accepted identifier forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), explains ISIN-to-LEI entity resolution, and provides critical usage guidance such as passing the issuer name exactly as printed for bonds and never appending trailing security-class words. This is materially more than the schema's brief descriptions.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly scopes supported types (company, drug) and positions itself as the prerequisite ID-resolution step, differentiating it from sibling tools like entity_profile that operate on already-resolved 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 an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' along with numerous real-world phrasings ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools that might be more appropriate for later steps, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Onedrive 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

The set mixes near-synonymous routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), overlapping discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), and several prediction-market scanners (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) whose boundaries are easy to blur. The six onedrive_* tools are distinct, but they are buried in an unrelated toolkit where multiple tools appear to address the same task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is split across several conventions: onedrive_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* form consistent clusters, but top-level tools use bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, compare_entities), and varied styles (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). The pattern is readable within clusters, but not predictable across the server.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is heavy, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the server's name 'Onedrive' — only 6 of 37 target OneDrive, while 31 span Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, and web utilities. This is a sprawling multi-domain bundle rather than a focused server.

Completeness1/5

As a OneDrive server, the surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only coverage (list, search, get, profile, shared) but no upload, create, update, move, copy, delete, or share operations, and binary Office/PDF content returns unreadable bytes. The Pipeworx tools are individually comprehensive, but they do not fill the basic lifecycle gaps for the server's apparent file-management domain.

Resources