Skip to main content
Glama

Textcase

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?

Despite rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: multi-source resolution, explicit `unresolved` reporting, returning candidates on ambiguity, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and internal cascading lookups. This goes well beyond what annotations alone 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 long and dense, but it is front-loaded with usage guidance and examples, and nearly every sentence contributes behavioral or parameter insight. The supported-types section is somewhat sprawling, so it is not perfectly concise, but it is well-organized for the complexity it covers.

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 complex resolution tool with no output schema, the description explains what identifiers are returned, how ambiguity is handled, what happens when enrichment sources fail, and exactly what the `value` parameter should contain. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds major semantic value: accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), entity-type-specific guidance, the bond-issuer caveat about not passing full noun phrases, and an ISIN-to-LEI example. This meaningfully improves correct invocation beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb (resolve), a clear resource (user-spoken entity names), and a precise outcome (canonical/official identifiers). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that it supplies IDs that other tools require, and by listing concrete natural-language triggers.

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 gives a clear timing/selection rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Textcase 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research all target prediction-market analysis; and all_cases plus convert_case both handle text-case conversion. An agent will struggle to pick the right tool without deep reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Nearly all names are lowercase with underscores, but the morphological pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (convert_case, compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), many are bare nouns (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, all_cases), and a few are single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember). Still readable, but not a predictable verb_noun convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Textcase' — only all_cases and convert_case relate to the apparent purpose. The remaining 31 constitute a sprawling assortment of data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback tools that have nothing to do with text casing, making the count feel bloated and misaligned.

Completeness2/5

For the stated text-case domain, the two converters cover the basic transformations but lack supporting operations like case detection, batch processing, or custom case definitions. More fundamentally, the tool surface is incoherent: the majority of tools serve foreign domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, subscriptions), so there is no clear domain to evaluate for completeness, and obvious gaps exist within whatever the server is meant to be.

Resources