Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Water

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 mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it cascades through multiple endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are down, labels identifiers by source, explicitly reports unresolvable IDs under 'unresolved', and does not assert ambiguous matches. Contradicts nothing.

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 long and detailed, arguably too verbose. It front-loads examples and purpose, but then dives into extensive source-attribute details (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI) that could be condensed. Every sentence adds some value, but the density might overwhelm an agent. A tighter version would score higher.

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 resolver with no output schema, the description covers return behavior (figi_candidates, unresolved list), gracefully falling back, and even the internal cascade. It explains what to expect when input is ambiguous. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds critical nuance: for 'type' it clarifies the enum semantics; for 'value' it provides examples, warns against full noun phrases, and explains FIGI matching behavior. This is significant added meaning beyond the 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 opens with concrete user queries and states the core purpose: resolving a spoken name to canonical identifiers. It explicitly lists the supported types (company, drug) and the identifier outputs (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), distinguishing it from sibling tools that consume those IDs. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicit positive guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains when a name is ambiguous (asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already have an ID and want details, use entity_profile). Still clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

All Usgs Water 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

Several clusters of tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route/discover questions across the same 5,743 tools, differing mainly in mode or betaness. The polymarket_* family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) similarly overlaps in prediction-market edge detection. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool from these near-duplicate groups despite verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but patterns are mixed: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, find_sites, recall, forget, subscribe), some are noun phrases (current_conditions, entity_profile, bet_research), and some use a domain prefix (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The version-suffixed ask_pipeworx_beta is also a minor deviation from the otherwise clear descriptive style.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Usgs Water' since only 3 tools (current_conditions, daily_values, find_sites) actually relate to USGS water data. Even as a general Pipeworx platform server, the count is heavy, with many tools dedicated to niche prediction-market trading and meta-routing that inflate the surface.

Completeness1/5

Against the stated USGS Water purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it lacks water-quality samples, groundwater data, site metadata details, historical statistics, rating curves, parameter code lookup, and flood/alert data. The remaining 31 tools cover an entirely different domain (SEC filings, drugs, prediction markets, npm scans, memory), so agents using this server for water data will hit dead ends almost immediately.

Resources