Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gr_lookup

Look up a Greek entity in open data (GEMI registry + VIES).

query accepts a company name, a GEMI no. or a Greek VAT no. (ΑΦΜ, with or without the EL prefix). Returns the matching companies (name, GEMI no., VAT, active/inactive status). For a single result, adds the address and the VAT validity via VIES.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "gr_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
queryYes
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses both upstream sources (GEMI open registry and VIES), states that matches may be plural, lists the returned fields, and flags the conditional behaviour that address plus VIES VAT validity are only added for a single result. It omits authentication, rate limits, and what happens when zero entities match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the accepted input forms, then the return shape. No filler, and the bold on the accepted identifier types directs attention to the one parameter an agent must get right.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape, and it does (name, GEMI number, VAT, active/inactive status, conditional address and VIES validity). For a read-only lookup of this complexity the gaps — match strategy, empty-result behaviour, request limits — are modest but real.

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 83% but the required `query` parameter has no schema description at all, so the description is what teaches the agent the three accepted identifier formats and the EL-prefix tolerance. The five `_org`/`_group`/`_project`/`_instance`/`_run_id` plumbing parameters are documented in the schema (in French) and the description adds nothing about them, which keeps this below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Look up a Greek entity in open data (GEMI registry + VIES)" gives a specific verb, resource, jurisdiction and data source, which implicitly separates it from the many French entity tools (fr_siret, fr_stock_siret, sante_finess) in the sibling list. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is by adjective rather than by routing instruction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description tells the agent what the `query` argument can be (company name, GEMI number, Greek VAT/ΑΦΜ with optional EL prefix), which is genuine input-side guidance. It never states when to prefer this tool over another lookup, when not to use it, or what to do when multiple matches come back, so usage context is only implied.

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

All Tulina 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