Skip to main content
Glama

Semrush

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing multi-source cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, unresolved identifiers being explicitly listed, and ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates instead of asserting an answer. This gives an agent realistic expectations of behavior and failure modes.

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 long and densely packed, and the heavy use of parentheticals makes it harder to scan. However, nearly every sentence carries operational value, and the opening examples plus 'Use FIRST' provide strong front-loading. It is not wasteful, though it could be better structured.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior and does so thoroughly: labeled identifiers, unresolved fields, figi_candidates, and the RxCUI citation are all described. It also covers input formats, supported types, ambiguity, and failure degradation.

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?

Even though the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds critical guidance: pass the entity name only, never the full noun phrase, with concrete examples like 'NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' rather than 'revenue bonds.' It also explains how ISIN inputs are interpreted, which materially improves correct invocation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: resolving a user-spoken name into canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. The quoted examples and explicit mention of CIK, ticker, LEI, RxCUI, and FIGI make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings.

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?

It gives a clear, explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains the supported entity types and what happens in ambiguous cases. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Semrush 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and the multiple Polymarket tools could be confused. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence), while others are straightforward (e.g., keyword_overview). Overall readable but not highly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (SEO, finance, FDA, betting, memory). The tool count feels slightly excessive, yet each tool appears justified by its specific use case.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of business research needs: SEO, SEC filings, FDA data, betting analytics, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct social media or HR data), but the coverage is impressive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources