A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceCompany data for Spain, France, the UK, Ireland and Poland — registry, KYB and sanctions.
99
MIT
vsafe-risk
by ai.v-safe
Server Details
KYB risk scores for Israeli companies: sanctions, insolvency, adverse media, cyber, registry.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides a full 8-layer risk assessment with AI-scored adverse media, while the other is a faster, cheaper pre-screen with only 4 layers. There is no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given need.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tool names follow a verb_noun pattern: 'check_israeli_company' and 'quick_check'. While 'quick_check' is less specific about the noun (missing 'company'), the pattern is consistent and the names are clear.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of Israeli company risk assessment. The count is slightly low, but each tool serves a distinct and useful function, earning its place.
Completeness3/5
The server provides two tiers of risk assessment (full and quick), which covers the core need. However, it lacks additional tools like retrieving historical reports, updating company information, or exporting results, which could be expected for a risk assessment server.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_israeli_companyAInspect
Full V-Safe risk assessment of an Israeli company — all 8 layers incl. AI-scored adverse media. Returns a 0-100 risk score + LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH band, per-layer breakdown, linked evidence, confidence and coverage. Input: the 9-digit Israeli company number (registration_number / ח.פ); optional name, website and global ids (LEI/DUNS/VAT) enrich the result. Response time is typically 8-20s: V-Safe queries primary sources LIVE (registries, insolvency courts, sanctions, adverse media, domain) at request time, not from a cache. Set the client timeout to >= 30s.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | ||
| vat | No | ||
| duns | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| registration_number | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: returns risk score, per-layer breakdown, evidence, confidence, coverage; queries live sources; typical response time 8-20s; recommends timeout >=30s. This is comprehensive.
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?
The description is concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and output, then lists parameters and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure: score, band, per-layer breakdown, evidence, confidence, coverage. It also covers parameters and behavior, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining that registration_number is the 9-digit Israeli company number (ח.פ) and that optional parameters (name, website, LEI/DUNS/VAT) enrich the result. It adds meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs a full V-Safe risk assessment of an Israeli company, including 8 layers and returns a risk score with breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling 'quick_check' by emphasizing comprehensiveness.
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 specifies required input (9-digit Israeli company number) and optional parameters that enrich results. It also mentions response time and timeout setting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus the sibling 'quick_check'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quick_checkAInspect
Fast, cheap pre-screen — registry + insolvency + banking-restriction + domain only (no sanctions/adverse-media/market, no AI). Same output schema as the full check. Input: the 9-digit company number (ח.פ); optional website. Response time is typically 8-20s: V-Safe queries primary sources LIVE (registries, insolvency courts, sanctions, adverse media, domain) at request time, not from a cache. Set the client timeout to >= 30s.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website | No | ||
| registration_number | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that queries are performed LIVE from primary sources, not from cache, and gives typical response time. This provides critical behavioral context beyond what annotations would cover.
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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and covers key points in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's scope, inputs, behavior, performance characteristics, and how it differs from the sibling tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: it specifies the input as 'the 9-digit company number (ח.פ)' and marks website as optional. It does not provide further constraints or format details, but adds value beyond the bare 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 clearly states it is a 'fast, cheap pre-screen' that checks registry, insolvency, banking-restriction, and domain only. It explicitly lists what is excluded (sanctions, adverse-media, market, no AI) and distinguishes from the sibling tool check_israeli_company by focusing on a limited set of sources.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: it is a pre-screen, lists the sources checked, mentions same output schema as full check, and specifies input requirements (9-digit company number, optional website). It also sets expectations on response time (8-20s) and timeout (>=30s), implying when to use this faster option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceTrust Intelligence API - entity screening, sanctions, risk scoring, IBAN validation, and compliance checks via MCPMIT
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceScreens names and companies against OFAC, EU, UK, and UN sanctions lists with fuzzy-match scores, supporting bulk lookups for AML/KYC checks. Data is sourced directly from official government lists and cached for fast repeat checks.
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceExposes 29 official business-registry actors as MCP tools for KYC/AML, beneficial-owner (UBO), credit-risk and adverse-media workflows across 11 jurisdictions (EU, US, UAE). Sourced via Apify; pay-per-result.385MIT