Skip to main content
Glama

Match Affiliation String to Organizations

ror.organizations.affiliation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Intelligently match a free-text affiliation string (as found in academic paper bylines or grant records) to research organizations in the ROR registry. Pass the raw affiliation text exactly as it appears — e.g. "Dept. of Physics, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA" or "Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg". ROR's affiliation matching algorithm performs substring detection, name-variant lookup, and scoring to identify candidate organizations. Returns each candidate with: confidence score (0–1), a "chosen" boolean (the best single match), matching_type (e.g. SINGLE SEARCH, COMMON TERMS), and the organization's ROR ID, canonical name, type, and country. Ideal for metadata curation, ORCID affiliation disambiguation, funder acknowledgment normalization, and building organization-level research analytics from unstructured text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
affiliationYesFree-text affiliation string to match against the ROR registry, as it appears in an academic paper or grant record (e.g. "Dept. of Physics, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA"). ROR uses intelligent substring matching to identify the best candidate organizations. Returns each candidate with a confidence score (0–1) and a "chosen" flag.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
resultNoTool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the algorithm (substring detection, name-variant lookup, scoring), the output structure (confidence score, chosen boolean, matching_type, ROR ID, canonical name, type, country), and the 'best single match' semantics. This goes well beyond the annotations and leaves no ambiguity about what happens when called.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, examples, algorithm, output, and use cases are presented in logical order. Every sentence adds relevant information. It is not overly verbose for the amount of detail provided, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what the tool does, how the input should be formatted, what the algorithm does, what fields are returned, and the intended use cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already describes the 'affiliation' parameter fully with examples and behavior. The tool description reiterates this and adds more examples, reinforcing the instruction to pass raw text exactly as it appears. While the schema coverage is 100%, the description's extra examples and emphasis on raw-text handling provide marginal added value, though not strictly necessary.

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 matches free-text affiliation strings to research organizations, with concrete examples. The verb 'match' and resource 'affiliation string to organizations' are specific and unambiguous, and the title reinforces the purpose. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like ror.organizations.search or ror.organizations.get by the nature of the input (free-text vs structured query).

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 description provides clear usage context through examples and a list of ideal use cases (metadata curation, ORCID disambiguation, etc.). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like ror.organizations.search. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, but sufficient for an agent to know it is for raw affiliation text.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.