Skip to main content
Glama

Themeparks

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail on top: multi-endpoint cascading, graceful degradation if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguity behavior returning figi_candidates instead of asserting, and explicit unresolved identifiers. This far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded: the trigger examples and 'Use FIRST' instruction come immediately, and later detail is organized by entity type and failure/ambiguity behavior. Every section addresses a real calling decision, so the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the identifiers returned per type, stating that unresolved identifiers are listed explicitly rather than omitted, and describing the candidate list on ambiguous matches. It also covers degradation and cross-source coverage, so an agent has everything needed to call correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, the description materially expands parameter meaning: company accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name; ISIN resolves via GLEIF to the legal entity; and the value field warns against appended security-class words for bonds. It also clarifies ambiguity and unresolved presentation in the returned identifiers, beyond the schema's terse examples.

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 opens with recognizable user queries and then states a specific transformation: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. It enumerates supported entity types and the identifier sets for each, and frames itself as the first tool to invoke when a name needs to become an ID, which separates it from sibling lookup/profile tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving a clear trigger. It also gives detailed formatting rules (e.g., pass the entity name only for bonds, never the full noun phrase) and explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not name specific sibling tools to avoid or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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

All Themeparks 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented purposes, but several overlap or are explicitly redundant: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery entry points, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The thematic split between theme-park, data-lookup, prediction-market, and memory tools also forces agents to navigate unrelated clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_destinations, get_wait_times, remember, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Within families the patterns are consistent, but across the set the conventions are inconsistent and sometimes reverse the verb/noun order, making the surface harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the server is named Themeparks yet only 4 tools actually relate to theme parks. The remaining 31 tools span Pipeworx data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, creating a bloated and misaligned scope. A tightly scoped theme-park server would need far fewer tools, and a general data research server would not be named Themeparks.

Completeness2/5

For the implied theme-park domain, the surface is thin: list destinations, get entity metadata, get schedule, and get wait times cover basic lookups but omit search, attraction details beyond waits, historical data, pricing, dining/show info, and park updates. The non-theme-park tools are extensive, but they do not complete the server's apparent stated purpose.

Resources