Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouteservice

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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses rich behavior: identifiers are labeled by source, unresolved items are listed under `unresolved`, ambiguous matches return `figi_candidates`, enrichment from GLEIF/OpenFIGI degrades gracefully, and internal cascading may replace multiple lookups. This goes far beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 and dense, but it is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured by supported type. Almost every sentence adds value, including edge-case warnings. It loses one point for being somewhat sprawling — the company paragraph is a large parenthetical that could be better organized for quicker scanning.

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 must explain return values, and it does comprehensively: CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership, FIGI, `figi_candidates`, `unresolved`, and drug results with RxCUI, ingredient, brand, and citation. Input constraints, ambiguity handling, and failure/degradation behavior are all covered. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool 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 substantially enhances both parameters. For `value` it provides concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, ozempic), explains ISIN-to-LEI resolution, and warns about passing only the issuer name without trailing security-class words. For `type` it distinguishes company vs drug behavior in detail, adding meaning well beyond the schema enum.

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 leads with concrete user intents ('What's the ticker for…', 'look up the ID for…') and states a precise verb+resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers. It also disambiguates from sibling tools by explaining that these identifiers are what other tools require as input, making it clearly distinct from 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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving an unambiguous trigger condition. It also specifies supported entity types and accepted input formats. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Openrouteservice 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of geographic routing, AI visibility, betting analysis, memory storage, and random utilities. Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple data lookup tools like ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity), and the domain is completely inconsistent, making it nearly impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern; they mix snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (generate_llms_txt), and arbitrary verbs without a clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (processV2-like patterns are absent, but e.g., 'forget' is a single verb). This chaotic naming prevents an agent from predicting tool functions.

Tool Count1/5

With 27 tools covering routing, AI marketing, betting, memory, and more, the count is extremely mismatched for the server's implied purpose ('Openrouteservice'). Even ignoring the name, the number is high and the scope is far too broad, making the set unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

No coherent domain can be inferred from the tool set; it is an arbitrary collection. The routing tools are present but overshadowed by unrelated tools. For any single domain (e.g., betting or routing), the surface is either incomplete or includes extraneous tools, leaving the set severely lacking a clear purpose.

Resources