Skip to main content
Glama

Opendosm My

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich operational detail beyond that: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit 'unresolved' reporting instead of omission, source-labelling of every identifier, ambiguity behavior, and internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely dense, with long parentheticals and a run-on first sentence. It is front-loaded with purpose and organized by supported types, but it could be significantly tightened without losing information. It is more exhaustive than concise.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers all essential invocation context: accepted types and inputs, supported identifiers per type, ambiguity behavior, unresolved-field semantics, source fallback behavior, and expected cascading lookups. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema. It adds crucial value-format semantics: pass the entity name only, use the exact issuer string for bonds, avoid trailing security-class words, accept ticker/CIK/ISIN/name for company, and accept brand/generic for drug. This is strong added value, though somewhat redundant with the schema's value description.

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 the tool's job: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It enumerates supported types and specific identifier outputs (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that consume IDs, such as 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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and gives per-type input guidance. It also explains when it deliberately does not choose an identifier (ambiguous FIGI matches return figi_candidates). It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it misses the top threshold.

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

All Opendosm My 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set includes three nearly-identical ask_pipeworx variants (base, beta, grounded) that differ only subtly, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part queries. Several company/prediction tools also share adjacent purposes (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges), though detailed descriptions help. Overall, an agent could mis-select between these overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or consistent prefix pattern (opendosm_*, polymarket_*), and the ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent. However, a few are noun phrases (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, recent_alerts) and some verbs aren't uniform (list_datasets vs dataset_meta vs get_dataset). The mixture is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical focused server range and includes a clearly redundant experimental variant (ask_pipeworx_beta) plus many loosely-related utility functions (memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation). While the broad scope justifies some size, the count feels excessive for the 'Opendosm My' name, which suggests a narrower Malaysian-statistics focus.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent overarching goal of a multi-domain research/query platform, the surface is quite complete: data lookup, deep research, entity comparison, claim verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all covered. The Malaysian OpenDOSM component itself has list/meta/get lifecycle. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct dataset search beyond curated lists, no way to execute arbitrary Pipeworx tools directly) are workable.

Resources