Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Stonewake

by ai.stonewake
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Company overview

company_overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

One company the way the dashboard's Network view shows it, by node_id, the graph node id carried by search_companies hits (not the entity_id of company_profile). Answers the register identity, what the register records held for the company state (GLEIF, Companies House, a German register extract where one was read, SEC EDGAR, the Swiss gazette and the Marktstammdatenregister operator) in plain words, each fact with the record it cites and when that record was last confirmed, and the risk status. risk_state is portfolio when your team holds the company (risk then carries its portfolio assessment, as entity_risk_profile returns it), assessed when an assessment was made on the spot for your team, in_progress while one is being made, not_assessed with risk_reason allowance, failed or not_started, or sole_trader when the register states a natural person's business, which is never scored (risk then carries sole_trader true and no assessment). A tool call reads only and never starts an assessment. Pass locale de for the whole answer in German, the risk block included; codes stay as served.

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_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeNoThe language of the answer's words, en by default.
node_idYesThe graph node id, as returned by search_companies hits. Not the entity_id of company_profile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / locale / description
      Previous value: -"The language of the field labels, en by default."New value: +"The language of the answer's words, en by default."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / node_id / maximum
      Added value: +2147483647
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates risk_state values and what each means, notes that sole_trader is never scored, and states that calling never kicks off an assessment. It stops short of describing response size, pagination, or how the cited facts are shaped in practice.

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?

It is correctly front-loaded with what the tool returns, but the body is a sprawling run-on with a marathon embedded clause listing every risk_state value. Each element is relevant, yet the pacing makes it hard to parse, and the node_id/not-entity_id caveat is stated twice (description and schema).

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 return-value burden and does so reasonably: identity, per-fact citations with last-confirmed dates, and risk status with its state machine. Two fully documented params need little more. It leaves open the concrete response shape (field names/ordering) and volume, which keeps it from a 5.

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; the description earns an extra point by clarifying locale semantics that the schema does not: 'de' translates the whole answer including the risk block, while codes stay as served. node_id semantics are repeated from the schema rather than extended.

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?

It names the exact resource (one company, as shown in the dashboard's Network view) and the exact key (node_id), and explicitly excludes the wrong key by naming company_profile's entity_id. An agent can route between this tool and company_profile/search_companies without opening either 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?

It gives a concrete selection rule: use the node_id carried by search_companies hits, not the entity_id of company_profile. It also clarifies that a call never starts an assessment, so an agent knows not to expect an assessment side effect. It does not, however, spell out when to prefer company_records or entity_risk_profile instead of this overview.

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

All Stonewake toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources