Skip to main content
Glama

Weather Gc Ca

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive traits, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: internal cascading through several lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable (EDGAR identifiers still return), the explicit 'unresolved' field for failures, figi_candidates, and the pipeworx://rxnorm citation format. These behaviors materially shape agent expectations and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with user intents, but the company-type parenthetical is a sprawling run-on of nested clauses that is hard to parse, and the closing 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups' note is redundant with the prior cascade sentence. Bullet-pointed or broken-out structure would substantially improve agent comprehension of the same content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity — two entity types, four identifier systems, multiple upstream sources, and no output schema — the description carries the burden of conveying return artifacts and does so well: figi_candidates, the unresolved field, RxCUI + ingredient + brand, and the citation URI are all mentioned. Minor gap: the exact response shape for a successful company resolution is not specified, but coverage is strong for the complexity level.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value over the schema: it documents ISIN as an accepted company input (absent from the schema's value description), explains that FIGI lookup matches instrument names so the issuer must be passed exactly as printed, and specifies drug output (RxCUI + ingredient + brand). This meaningfully enriches what an agent can infer from the schema alone.

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?

Opens with concrete natural-language query examples that make the tool instantly recognizable, then states a specific verb+resource: resolving user-spoken names to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. The 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' directive and the detailed supported-types breakdown distinguish it from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities.

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?

Explicitly directs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and enumerates accepted input formats (ticker/CIK/ISIN/name; brand/generic drug name) plus a corrective rule: pass the entity name only, never the question's full noun phrase. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (entity_profile, compare_entities) and state when to prefer them over this tool.

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

All Weather Gc Ca 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes (e.g., current_observations vs. climate_daily), but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) overlap in function, all routing questions to a large tool catalog. This can confuse an agent about which to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case but follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), some noun_adjective (climate_daily), others compound (ai_visibility_check). The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Weather Gc Ca', which implies a focused weather service. Many tools are unrelated to weather (Polymarket, SEC, FDA, etc.), making the count inflated and mismatched to the server's apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

For weather, the server covers alerts, current observations, and climate records but lacks forecasts, radar, satellite imagery, and station listings. While the broader Pipeworx catalog is extensive, the weather-specific surface is incomplete for a dedicated weather tool.

Resources