Skip to main content
Glama

Scryfall

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?

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, disclosing cascade through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI fail, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, source labelling, and ISIN-to-legal-entity behavior. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral detail.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. It is longer than strictly necessary and contains a few sprawling parentheticals, but every sentence contributes useful edge-case or behavior information.

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 the complexity of the tool and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return behavior, accepted inputs, ambiguity resolution, unresolved identifiers, edge cases for bonds, drug output shape, and failure degradation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it reveals that ISIN is accepted for company, explains the exact entity-name-only requirement with a bond example, exposes bond/FIGI resolution semantics, and clarifies what each type resolves to. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities by emphasizing identifier lookup rather than profile or comparison.

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,' which provides strong when-to-use guidance. It gives detailed input-format instructions and caveats, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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

All Scryfall 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus deep_research creates real boundary confusion, and the six polymarket_* tools overlap enough to require careful reading. The few Scryfall card tools are clearly distinct from the Pipeworx bulk, but the name mismatch adds selection friction.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity, validate_claim). There are deviations like entity_profile, deep_research, and pipeworx_trending, but the nested families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*) are internally consistent and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold and is especially mismatched with the server name 'Scryfall', which implies a focused MTG card server. Only 4 of 35 tools relate to Scryfall; the remaining 31 form a sprawling data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The dominant Pipeworx data-research surface is remarkably complete: universal lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, entity resolution, claim validation, change feeds, subscriptions, memory, and discovery. The Scryfall subset covers core card lookup (search, get by name, random, list sets) but lacks rulings, set details, and card-by-ID lookups, which is a minor gap relative to the server's stated name.

Resources