Skip to main content
Glama

Urlscan Io

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior; the description adds substantial behavioral context: cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, and ISIN-to-LEI mapping. There is no contradiction with 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 densely informative and front-loaded with examples and the 'Use FIRST' rule. Every section adds operational detail, though some phrases could be tightened without losing value. The length is largely justified by the tool's multi-source 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains return artifacts such as figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers, source labels, and RxNorm citations. It also covers failure modes, accepted input variations, and the cost/behavior of cascading lookups, making it complete enough for an agent to call this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description still adds meaningful value by noting ISIN as an accepted company input, specifying 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' guidance, and warning against including trailing security-class words in bond issuer lookups.

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 names a concrete operation—resolving user-spoken names to official identifiers—and immediately supplies real user-phrase examples. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing that it produces the canonical IDs that 'other tools require as input' and enumerates supported entity types and identifier domains.

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 direct usage rule: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' The supported types and accepted inputs make the intended invocation context clear. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops 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 Urlscan Io 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions, but there is meaningful overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which route questions to data sources. The multiple polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread) also require careful reading to differentiate. The urlscan tools (domain, ip, search, submit, result) are distinct, but the overall set mixes several unrelated domains, increasing misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: short urlscan verbs (domain, ip, search, submit), noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, deep_research), verb_noun names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern or consistent prefix convention across the set. This inconsistency makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name alone.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the set is far above the 3-15 range typical for a coherent server, even for a broad data API. The inclusion of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions suggests the count is so high that agents need help navigating it. The load is compounded by tools spanning urlscan.io, Pipeworx, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the server feel like a grab bag rather than a focused service.

Completeness3/5

The urlscan portion is complete for searching, submitting, and retrieving scan results, and the Pipeworx side covers a wide range of data and analysis capabilities. However, the server is named 'Urlscan Io' while most tools are unrelated to urlscan, creating a mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual surface. There are no obvious gaps for the included features, but the lack of a coherent domain makes it hard to assess what 'complete' means for this set.

Resources