Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Gazette

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: identifiers are source-labelled, unresolved identifiers are surfaced explicitly, ambiguous matches return figi_candidates, and enrichment degrades gracefully when upstream services are unavailable. This goes well beyond 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with examples and the 'Use FIRST' directive, but it becomes dense and run-on, with a notably malformed phrase: 'more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates to pick from.' Some sentences are redundant, such as the final cascading-lookups claim.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining return fields, ambiguity handling, unresolved behavior, citation format for drugs, and degraded enrichment behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both supported types.

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 adds crucial meaning: it accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name even though the schema only mentions ticker and CIK, and it warns to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase. This helps avoid realistic lookup failures.

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 the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers and gives concrete examples like ticker, CIK, LEI, and RxCUI. It positions itself as the name-to-ID resolver among sibling tools, and the supported-type breakdown adds useful specificity.

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 phrase 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' gives an explicit when-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly name excluded cases or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and directly actionable.

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

All Uk Gazette 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all serve similar query routing). Tools from unrelated domains (UK Gazette, Polymarket betting, AI visibility checks) are mixed together, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is chaotic: some tools use descriptive phrases with underscores (gazette_deceased_estates, polymarket_arbitrage), others use generic verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some include version or mode indicators (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overstuffed for its purported focus on the UK Gazette. The majority of tools (Polymarket, Pipeworx general, AI visibility, etc.) are unrelated to the server's name, making it feel like a bundling of many services into one, which is excessive for a coherent tool set.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Uk Gazette', there are only a handful of Gazette-specific tools (gazette_search_notices, gazette_insolvency_notices, etc.), while the rest cover unrelated domains. This leaves obvious gaps for Gazette-related tasks (e.g., no tool for searching particular notice types or filtering by edition), despite the large tool count.

Resources