Skip to main content
Glama

Ror

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get

get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full ROR record. Accepts the trailing identifier (e.g. "03vek6s52") or the full URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ror_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoROR organization ID (URL)
nameNoOrganization name
linksNoExternal links
typesNoOrganization types
aliasesNoAlternative names
countryNo
acronymsNoOrganization acronyms
addressesNoOrganization addresses
establishedNoYear the organization was established
ip_addressesNoAssociated IP address ranges
email_addressNoOrganization email address if available
relationshipsNoRelated organizations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ror_id": "03vek6s52"
+  },
+  {
+    "ror_id": "https://ror.org/03vek6s52"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Full ROR organization record",
+  "properties": {
+    "acronyms": {
+      "description": "Organization acronyms",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "addresses": {
+      "description": "Organization addresses",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "aliases": {
+      "description": "Alternative names",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "country": {
+      "properties": {
+        "country_code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "country_name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "email_address": {
+      "description": "Organization email address if available",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "established": {
+      "description": "Year the organization was established",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "ROR organization ID (URL)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ip_addresses": {
+      "description": "Associated IP address ranges",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "links": {
+      "description": "External links",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Organization name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "relationships": {
+      "description": "Related organizations",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "types": {
+      "description": "Organization types",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., caching, errors), but for a simple get operation, the annotations are sufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks usage guidance, but otherwise covers the essential semantics.

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?

The description explains that ror_id can be either the trailing identifier or the full URL, adding crucial format information not present in the bare string schema. This fully clarifies the one parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Full ROR record,' which implies retrieval of a ROR record by identifier. It is clear in verb+resource but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity or entity_profile.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage via identifier or URL, but does not state when this is the right choice compared to search or other lookup tools.

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

All Ror 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve a discovery role. The extremely detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between meta-tools and research tools are genuinely confusing, especially with 34 tools in one namespace.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare verbs (get, search, recall), nouns (affiliation, entity_profile, recent_changes), and verb_noun phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some families are consistent (polymarket_*), but overall there is no uniform convention or prefix scheme, making the set feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, many tools are meta-utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscription management) and there are near-duplicate variants (three ask_pipeworx forms, six Polymarket tools) that inflate the surface.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research platform the surface is impressively complete: lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, claim checking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and tool discovery are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct general-purpose web fetch, and ROR lacks create/update, which is acceptable for a curated registry), but agents should rarely hit dead ends.

Resources