Skip to main content
Glama

Company network

company_network
Read-onlyIdempotent

The register neighborhood of one node: its officers, shareholders and beneficial owners, its holdings, branches and other register relations, each edge citing the register record that states it (register, record type, identifier, source URL, retrieval date), current edges before closed ones. Takes node_id, the graph node id from search_companies hits or from a previous network answer, so a neighbor expands the same way. Natural persons are served, with node_type person, only in workspaces where person data is switched on; elsewhere they and their edges are left out, and a person node_id answers not_found. edge_types keeps the named types only (for example officer_of,shareholder_of); limit caps the neighbors, default and maximum 200, and truncated says when it cut.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "company_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum neighbors, default and maximum 200.
node_idYesThe graph node id, as returned by search_companies hits. Not the entity_id of company_profile.
edge_typesNoComma separated edge types to keep, each one of officer_of, shareholder_of, parent_of, ultimate_parent_of, fund_manager_of, branch_of, subfund_of, feeder_to, proprietor_of, creditor_of, security_agent_of, declared_parent_of, successor_of, insolvency_administrator_of, beneficial_owner_of; omit for every type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / edge_types / description
      Previous value: -"Comma separated edge types to keep; omit for every type."New value: +"Comma separated edge types to keep, each one of officer_of, shareholder_of, parent_of, ultimate_parent_of, fund_manager_of, branch_of, subfund_of, feeder_to, proprietor_of, creditor_of, security_agent_of, declared_parent_of, successor_of, insolvency_administrator_of, beneficial_owner_of; omit for every type."
    • changedInput schema / properties / edge_types / maxLength
      Previous value: -256New value: +512
    • addedInput schema / properties / edge_types / pattern
      Added value: +"^ *(?:officer_of|shareholder_of|parent_of|ultimate_parent_of|fund_manager_of|branch_of|subfund_of|feeder_to|proprietor_of|creditor_of|security_agent_of|declared_parent_of|successor_of|insolvency_administrator_of|beneficial_owner_of) *(?:, *(?:officer_of|shareholder_of|parent_of|ultimate_parent_of|fund_manager_of|branch_of|subfund_of|feeder_to|proprietor_of|creditor_of|security_agent_of|declared_parent_of|successor_of|insolvency_administrator_of|beneficial_owner_of) *)*$"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / node_id / maximum
      Added value: +2147483647
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: edges are ordered current-before-closed, every edge carries provenance (register, record type, identifier, source URL, retrieval date), person data is workspace-gated with not_found for a person node_id elsewhere, and truncated signals a cut result set.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope, and no sentence is pure filler, but several sentences are long multi-clause run-ons that cram provenance, gating and ordering into single sprawling statements, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so reasonably (per-edge provenance fields, ordering, truncation flag). Access-gating and not_found behavior are covered; response envelope details beyond that are absent but not critical.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: node_id is the graph node id (not entity_id), edge_types keeps only named types, and it explains the practical effect of limit and truncated in a way the schema only states numerically.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the register neighborhood of one node, enumerating the edge families (officers, shareholders, beneficial owners, holdings, branches). This is clearly distinct from siblings like company_profile (single entity) and ownership_chain, and an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explains where node_id comes from ('search_companies hits or from a previous network answer') and that a neighbor expands the same way, which is genuine guidance for traversal. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ownership_chain or company_profile, so sibling routing is only implied.

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.

Resources