Pan-European distressed M&A and judicial auction intelligence. Real-time filings across 29 countries for Cursor, Claude, and deal teams.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving detailed company data, accessing coverage statistics, searching auctions, and searching insolvency filings. The overlap between auction and insolvency search is minimal and clarified by their focus on asset sales vs. legal filings.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_company_details, get_coverage_stats, search_distressed_auctions, search_insolvencies. The use of get_ for retrieval and search_ for queries is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a specialized EU business intelligence server covering company details, coverage metrics, auction searches, and insolvency searches. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor excessive for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflows: searching for distressed assets/insolvencies and retrieving detailed company information. Minor gap is the lack of a general company search without insolvency context, but the server's purpose appears focused on distressed acquisitions, so it is largely complete.
Retrieve full case file, legal registry information, administrator/practitioner contact details, and public contract history for a specific company by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The unique UUID of the company from AcquireEU. | |
| api_key | No | AcquireEU API Key (optional if Authorization header or x-api-key header is set). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read-like retrieval and hints at what will come back, but it doesn't disclose potential auth behavior, handling of unknown IDs, data recency, or any restrictions beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with a compact list of content categories, no filler, and no repetition of schema information. The primary verb and resource appear on first read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the key output semantics via the listed content types, which is largely sufficient. It does not address edge cases like missing or invalid company IDs, but the overall call guidance is adequate for normal invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'api_key' are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter guidance, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('company details') with an explicit ID constraint, and lists the concrete report contents (case file, legal registry, contacts, public contract history). This makes its purpose obvious and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and coverage tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Use is implied: call this when you have a company ID and want comprehensive details for that specific company. However, it never explicitly mentions the sibling tools as alternatives for finding IDs first, and gives no 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get real-time database coverage metrics, active scrapers, and record counts across all 32 European jurisdictions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data in real-time and covers all jurisdictions, implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The absence of an output schema means the description partially compensates by listing the returned metrics, but it omits any caveats or additional behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then lists the specific outputs and scope. It is concise with no filler, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the content of the response (coverage metrics, scrapers, record counts). It specifies the scope (32 European jurisdictions) and indicates real-time data. It does not detail the exact structure of the response, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously (100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving real-time database coverage metrics, active scrapers, and record counts across a defined scope (32 European jurisdictions). The verb 'Get' specifies the action, and the resource is concrete. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_company_details or search_insolvencies, which have different subjects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on scenarios where it is appropriate. For a read-only statistics tool, this is acceptable but not thorough. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search European court-ordered liquidation auctions, commercial real estate foreclosures, industrial machinery, and insolvency asset sales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of auction lots to return (1-50, default 15). | |
| search | No | Keyword search in auction title, description, or court name. | |
| api_key | No | AcquireEU API Key (optional if Authorization header or x-api-key header is set). | |
| country | No | 2-letter ISO country code (e.g. ES, FR, DE, NL, PL, GR, CZ) or ALL. | |
| asset_type | No | Type of asset: Real Estate, Industrial Machinery, Vehicles, Inventory, Equipment, or ALL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states what is searched, not pagination behavior, auth expectations, data source characteristics, or response format. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, its brevity leaves out behavioral and selection context that would make it more useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not fully self-contained. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over search_insolvencies and does not describe what the returned results look like or how the API behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 even though the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The asset categories in the description loosely map to asset_type values, but all parameter semantics are already documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: searching European court-ordered liquidation auctions, commercial real estate foreclosures, industrial machinery, and insolvency asset sales. This gives a specific scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_insolvencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_insolvencies is not mentioned, and no exclusions or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search and filter 132,000+ live European insolvency, liquidation, and bankruptcy filings across 32 jurisdictions (UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Scandinavia, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-100, default 20). | |
| stage | No | Insolvency stage filter: Liquidation, Administration, Restructuring, Bankruptcy, Dissolution, or ALL. | |
| search | No | Free-text keyword to search company names, descriptions, or insolvency practitioner names. | |
| sector | No | Industry sector (e.g. Technology, Manufacturing, Retail, Construction, Hospitality, Healthcare, Transportation). | |
| api_key | No | AcquireEU API Key (optional if Authorization header or x-api-key header is set). Get your key at https://www.acquireeu.com/account/api | |
| country | No | 2-letter ISO country code (e.g. DE, FR, BE, UK, IE, ES, IT, NL, CH, AT, NO, SE, PL, CZ) or ALL. | |
| date_from | No | Filter filings on or after this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), e.g. "2026-01-01". | |
| has_contracts | No | Set to true to filter only distressed companies that have won official EU public government contracts (TED). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully conveys that the data is 'live' and quantifies the dataset size and geographic scope, but it does not describe return shape, pagination behavior, or authentication expectations beyond what the schema already states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that includes substantive scope, scale, and jurisdiction examples, with no wasted words. It earns every word and remains immediately skimmable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only moderately complete. It establishes the resource and dataset scope well but omits default result behavior, filter-combination behavior, and expected response contents, leaving some end-to-end calling context to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds only a high-level 'search and filter' framing and does not explain advanced semantics like how filters combine or how absence of filters behaves, keeping this at baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search and filter 132,000+ live European insolvency, liquidation, and bankruptcy filings' across 32 jurisdictions. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling search_distressed_auctions by targeting insolvency filings rather than auctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_distressed_auctions, get_company_details, or get_coverage_stats. Usage context is only implied by the focus on insolvency filings, and no exclusions or alternative-routing conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_company_detailsget_coverage_statssearch_distressed_auctionssearch_insolvencies
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
