EU Business Check

Check an EU VAT number

check_vat_number

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks whether a business's VAT registration number is valid or which company it belongs to, for example "is ES A28015865 a valid VAT number?", "check the supplier VAT number on this invoice, ATU33864707" or "I need a VIES consultation number for this supplier". Pass the country code and the VAT number printed on the invoice or company letterhead, and requesterCountry with requesterVatNumber only when the user gives their own business VAT number for a consultation number. Returns whether the business is registered for VAT on the date of the check and, where the member state publishes it, the registered company name and address. Covers EU member states and Northern Ireland (XI), not GB. It only reads the public EU register of VAT-registered businesses; do not use it for VAT rates or to judge whether a business is trustworthy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`country`	Yes	Two-letter country code of the VAT number: an EU member state (Greece is EL) or XI for Northern Ireland. GB numbers cannot be checked.
`vatNumber`	Yes	The business VAT registration number, as printed on an invoice, with or without the country prefix, spaces and dots, for example 811128135 or DE 811 128 135.
`requesterCountry`	No	Country code of the business VAT number of the user asking. Send with requesterVatNumber to get a consultation number.
`requesterVatNumber`	No	The business VAT number of the user asking, for a consultation number. Leave out unless the user gives it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`note`	No
`valid`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`address`	No
`country`	Yes
`checkedAt`	Yes
`vatNumber`	Yes
`detailsWithheld`	No
`consultationNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: what is returned (registration status as of the check date, plus name/address where the member state publishes it) and the coverage boundary (EU member states plus XI, not GB). It also clarifies the tool only reads the public EU register.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The trigger examples and scope statement are front-loaded and each sentence carries information (triggers, parameter rule, return value, coverage, exclusions). It is a dense single block with no wasted sentences, though the embedded examples make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still explains the shape of the answer and, importantly, the geographic limitation (no GB) and the read-only public-register nature of the source. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: pass the VAT number as printed on an invoice or letterhead, and treat requesterCountry/requesterVatNumber as conditional on the user supplying their own business number. That is genuinely more than the schema alone conveys.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('check whether a business's VAT registration number is valid or which company it belongs to') and anchors it with concrete example queries. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (LEI lookup, company registry, feedback), so an agent can route 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit trigger phrasing, a conditional rule for the optional consultation-number parameters ('requesterCountry with requesterVatNumber only when the user gives their own business VAT number'), and explicit when-not guidance ('do not use it for VAT rates or to judge whether a business is trustworthy').

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

All EU Business Check tools Inspect

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

Need Help?