Skip to main content
Glama

Zoho_crm

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations. It reveals that the tool cascades through multiple internal endpoints, degrades gracefully when enrichment sources are down, explicitly returns unresolved identifiers under an `unresolved` field rather than omitting them, and returns `figi_candidates` when a name matches multiple instruments. These are essential behavioral traits for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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 and dense, but every sentence adds substantive value. It uses a list of examples to convey the trigger, then introduces supported types and their respective identifiers, then alternates between specific cases and general behavior, ending with a note on cascade replacement. Though structured well, it could gain from bullet formatting; still, the content is concise relative to the breadth of behavior covered.

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 assumes the responsibility of describing the return semantics. It enumerates exactly what gets returned per type (CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, etc.), how candidates are handled, and how unresolved items are represented. It also covers edge cases like non-US issuers and non-equity instruments. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, yet the description adds critical semantic nuance for the value parameter: for a bond, pass the issuer exactly as printed, never appended security-class words; for company, accepts ticker, CIK, or full name; for drug, brand or generic names. This is actionable, high-value semantic guidance 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 states a specific action: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical official identifiers. It opens with concrete example queries, then declares the resource and exact function. It clearly distinguishes itself as the tool to use first for name-to-ID, making its purpose unambiguous even among 30+ siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also details the supported entity types (company, drug) and the exact inputs for each, clarifying a canonical use case. It even addresses edge cases such as bond issues and the need to pass only the issuer name, teaching the agent what to provide and what not to include.

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

All Zoho_crm 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
Disambiguation2/5

The five Zoho CRM tools are well-differentiated, but the 31 Pipeworx/Polymarket tools create heavy overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all serve similar lookup purposes). Mixing two unrelated domains makes it easy for an agent to select a tool from the wrong group.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Zoho tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix, but the remaining 31 tools follow no clear convention—ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile, forget, scan_dependency, etc. mix noun-first, verb-first, and bare verb patterns without a unifying scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond what a Zoho CRM server needs, and only 5 actually relate to Zoho CRM. The bulk are for unrelated data sources, prediction markets, memory management, and web generation, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Zoho CRM surface includes create, get, list, and search, but omits essential operations like update, delete, and upsert. The other 31 tools cover a completely different domain, so the server fails to provide complete lifecycle coverage for its stated purpose.

Resources