Skip to main content
Glama

Prayer Times

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 readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers under `unresolved`, source-labeled results, cascaded internal lookups, and the policy of returning `figi_candidates` rather than asserting a single match on ambiguous names. This goes well beyond what annotations 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and user-phrase examples, and almost every clause carries operational information. However, the supported-type sections are dense monoliths of nested parentheticals and semicolons, which makes scanning harder than necessary. It is efficient in content but not structurally clean enough for a 5.

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 covers input semantics, resolution behavior, ambiguity handling, source coverage, failure/degradation behavior, and the shape of results (CIK, ticker, LEI, ownership, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand). Given the tool's complexity and cascading lookups, this is thorough enough 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.

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real semantic value: it enumerates accepted forms for `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name; brand or generic drug name), provides examples, and warns against passing full noun phrases like 'revenue bonds' because the FIGI lookup matches instrument names. This materially helps an agent choose correct values, exceeding the schema baseline.

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-phrase examples and states a specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes this from lookup/analysis tools by emphasizing that it produces IDs for downstream consumption, and the supported type breakdown further sharpens the purpose.

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.' It also explains how ambiguity should be handled (e.g., 'asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates'). However, it does not name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as entity_profile or compare_entities, so the guidance is strong on when but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Prayer Times 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though there is some overlap between `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence`, and between `bet_research` and `polymarket_edges`. Overall, an agent can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in prefix usage (e.g., `pipeworx_*`, `polymarket_*`, no prefix) and verb presence (e.g., `discover_tools` vs. `generate_llms_txt`). The pattern is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 24 tools, the server is overloaded for the 'Prayer Times' name. Many tools are unrelated to prayer, suggesting poor scoping relative to the server's implied purpose.

Completeness2/5

For prayer times, the server includes core tools but lacks features like multi-day forecasts or advanced settings. However, the inclusion of many unrelated tools makes the set incoherent and incomplete for any single domain.

Resources