Conecto

Save a UK company's filed accounts

companies_save_accounts

A UK company's annual accounts as filed with Companies House, saved to the file store as the PDF it holds: the latest, or those made up to made_up_to (a year or a date). Big companies file theirs as scans, which no register publishes as figures: companies_read_accounts then reads the statements by OCR, and documents_page_images shows the pages to check. Saving the same filing again gives back the file already saved. Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "companies_save_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes	A UK company id from companies_search, like gb:08130873.
`made_up_to`	No	The accounts made up to this date (2025-03-31) or in this year (2025).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds context well beyond the annotations: per-call cost of $0.001, no charge on failure, the fact that re-saving the same filing returns the already-saved file (deduplication behavior), and the scan/OCR caveat that explains why the PDF is not a figures source. The dedup statement sits slightly at odds with idempotentHint=false, but the per-call billing reconciles it and nothing misleads.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is saved and the default selection, then the OCR caveat, the dedup note, and pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the scan/OCR aside is longer than strictly necessary for invoking this tool.

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 tells the agent the artefact is a PDF in the file store and what to do with it next. It stops short of saying what handle is returned (file id, link) so the caller knows how to reference the saved file afterwards.

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 both parameters are documented, but the description still adds value by clarifying the optional made_up_to semantics — omit it for the latest filing, or give a year or a full date. That default behavior is not in the schema and is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to supply the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('annual accounts as filed with Companies House, saved to the file store as the PDF') and names the sibling tools it is not (companies_read_accounts for OCR'd figures, documents_page_images for page checks). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any 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?

Explains clearly which case selects this tool — you need the actual filed PDF, especially for big companies whose accounts are scans that no register publishes as figures — and defers to companies_read_accounts for the numbers. It never explicitly excludes register-based figure tools such as companies_financials, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All Conecto 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?