vsafe-risk

check_israeli_company

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lei`	No
`vat`	No
`duns`	No
`website`	No
`company_name`	No
`registration_number`	Yes

TDQS

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.

All vsafe-risk tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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.

Resources

Need Help?