Skip to main content
Glama

Password

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar for added context is met by rich behavioral disclosure: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` fields, labelled identifier sources, and the figi_candidates behavior when a name matches multiple instruments. These details go well beyond the annotations and materially inform an agent's expectations.

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 dense and content-rich, and the opening quotes strongly signal purpose. But it is a long, sprawling passage with nested parentheticals and multiple compounded clauses; while every item is informative, it is not concise or easily scannable. Better paragraphing and separation of supported types would improve structure.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing key return behaviors: figi_candidates when ambiguous, explicit unresolved fields, source-labelled identifiers, and degradation when enrichment sources are unavailable. For a multi-type, multi-endpoint tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful invocation guidance beyond the schema, especially for `value`: 'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY' with the concrete bond-issuer example, and explains how ISIN input routes through GLEIF. This adds real parameter-level value, though not an entirely new struct of semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it resolves a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It also differentiates this tool from siblings by positioning it as the identity-lookup layer: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and 'other tools require as input.' Supported entity types are enumerated, and examples like 'what's the CIK for...' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies supported input forms and includes a caution about passing the entity name only for bond lookups. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like entity_profile or compare_entities and state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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

All Password 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share nearly identical routing, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to stable. The six Polymarket-related tools also form a dense cluster with subtle boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions overlap in onboarding purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_password, resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_subscriptions), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are applied consistently. Minor deviations exist (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending), but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and the set feels bloated: several ask_pipeworx variants and Polymarket scanning tools could be consolidated, and unrelated utilities (check_password, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) are mixed into what is otherwise a data-research platform. The broad scope does not justify this many top-level entry points.

Completeness4/5

The main data-research workflow is well covered: routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, and feedback are all present. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete; minor gaps remain such as the lone password tool lacking generation or breach-checking companions, and no direct raw-fetch tool, but these are workable.

Resources