Skip to main content
Glama

Postscript

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, the description discloses meaningful behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity handling via `figi_candidates`, explicit `unresolved` fields rather than omission, per-identifier source labeling, and internal cascading lookups. Nothing in the description contradicts the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations.

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 examples and a clear directive, and every included detail serves the tool's complexity. It loses a point because of the long parenthetical chains and some repeated identifier-source detail that could be tightened or bulleted.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it documents input forms, return fields (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand), ambiguity behavior, unresolved-ID behavior, supported sources, and failure mode. An agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description substantially exceeds it by adding accepted formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic name), the exact instruction to pass only the entity name for bonds, and a warning against including the full noun phrase. It also explains what each `type` returns, making the parameters fully actionable.

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 an explicit mission: "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input." It supports exactly two entity types (company and drug), lists the identifiers returned, and the "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID" line clearly distinguishes it from sibling 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 provides an explicit trigger condition: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," along with multiple example phrasings. It does not name alternative tools explicitly or state when not to use it, but the role in the workflow is made clear.

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

All Postscript 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is some overlap among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket analysis tools, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and some with verbs (list_subscriptions, remember). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server covers a broad scope including data querying, Polymarket analysis, SMS management, and utilities. While many tools are justified, the number feels slightly high and some tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools) might be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides comprehensive coverage for data analysis, entity resolution, fact-checking, and monitoring. However, SMS management lacks create/update operations for keywords and subscribers, and there is no tool for sending SMS messages, indicating minor gaps.

Resources