Skip to main content
Glama

Semver

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, internal cascading across lookup endpoints, and special behavior for non-equity instruments and ISIN-to-LEI resolution. This is solid behavioral disclosure without contradicting the 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 long but information-dense, and it is well front-loaded with usage examples and the 'Use FIRST' directive. Nearly every sentence adds useful detail for such a complex multi-type tool. It is slightly sprawling due to nested parentheses, but not wasteful.

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?

Given the multi-type complexity, rich schema, and absence of an output schema, the description does a strong job covering expected outputs (CIK, ticker, company name, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), accepted inputs, and failure degradation. It stops short of 5 by not explicitly describing ambiguous-resolution behavior or the exact structure of unresolved results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself is already informative. The description goes further by providing concrete examples, explaining ticker/CIK/ISIN/name variants, highlighting the entity-name-only warning for securities, and clarifying non-equity resolution behavior. This meaningfully exceeds 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: resolve user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers such as CIK, LEI, FIGI, and RxCUI. It distinguishes itself from general-purpose search/ask siblings by positioning itself as the ID-resolution first step and by enumerating supported entity types.

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 when-to-use directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains which input forms are accepted for company vs drug lookups. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Semver 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve general data-query purposes, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim pull from the same SEC/news/data sources in similar ways. The semver utilities are distinct, but they sit alongside unrelated prediction-market, memory, subscription, and AI-visibility tools that make the overall boundary of each tool much fuzzier.

Naming Consistency3/5

Some tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (parse_semver, compare_semver, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but others are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes) or branded/verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, bet_research, pipeworx_trending). The mix is readable but inconsistent, with no unifying convention across the 34 tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server named Semver, whose actual semver-related surface is only a few utilities. Even viewed as a broad data platform, the count is heavy and padded with unrelated capabilities like prediction-market arbitrage, memory storage, subscriptions, and AI-visibility checks that do not belong together in one server.

Completeness2/5

As a Semver server it covers parse, compare, and range satisfaction but lacks obvious operations like version bumping/incrementing or validating a version list, making the core surface incomplete. As a general data platform the domain is unclear and the unusual mix of semver, market, memory, and marketing tools prevents any coherent completeness assessment.

Resources