Leadgen ONRC Romania

Watch an activity for new companies

watch_caen

Idempotent

Watch a CAEN activity code, optionally scoped to one county, for newly registered companies. A registration-date cutoff is the baseline: only companies registered after it are reported, and poll_watchlist slides the cutoff forward so each new company surfaces once. A retired CAEN Rev.2 code (6201) also watches its Rev.3 successor (6210), with a warning.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "watch_caen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	CAEN activity code to watch (e.g. '6210'); a retired Rev.2 code also watches its Rev.3 successor.
`county`	No	Optional county name to scope the watch to (diacritic-insensitive); omit to watch nationwide.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the watch is in place.
`asOf`	No	What to cite: registry (ONRC snapshot date), financialYear (fiscal year of the figures), anaf (day of the ANAF data), snapshot, published, source.
`error`	No	Set only when there is no answer (empty_query, invalid_cui, data_unavailable, plan_required ...); such a call is not counted.
`watch`	No	kind, target, owner (key prefix), county, baseline.
`message`	No	A sentence for the caller.
`warnings`	No	Notes on how the request was read (a clamped limit, a widened CAEN code, an ignored field).
`attribution`	No	The credit line to keep when redistributing the data (CC BY 4.0).
`alreadyWatching`	No	true when you already held this watch (nothing changed).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / attribution

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The credit line to keep when redistributing the data (CC BY 4.0).",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / code / description

Added value: +"CAEN activity code to watch (e.g. '6210'); a retired Rev.2 code also watches its Rev.3 successor."

addedInput schema / properties / county / description

Added value: +"Optional county name to scope the watch to (diacritic-insensitive); omit to watch nationwide."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The watch registered (or already held) for the activity code.",
+  "properties": {
+    "alreadyWatching": {
+      "description": "true when you already held this watch (nothing changed).",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "asOf": {
+      "description": "What to cite: registry (ONRC snapshot date), financialYear (fiscal year of the figures), anaf (day of the ANAF data), snapshot, published, source.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Set only when there is no answer (empty_query, invalid_cui, data_unavailable, plan_required ...); such a call is not counted.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A sentence for the caller.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the watch is in place.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "description": "Notes on how the request was read (a clamped limit, a widened CAEN code, an ignored field).",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "watch": {
+      "description": "kind, target, owner (key prefix), county, baseline.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), it discloses the core mechanic: a registration-date cutoff is the baseline and poll_watchlist slides it forward so each company surfaces exactly once. It also flags the retired Rev.2 code 6201 mapping to Rev.3 6210 'with a warning', which is real behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, cutoff/polling mechanics, and the legacy-code special case. The essential scoping statement is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations already carry the safety/idempotency profile. The description fills the remaining gap — how the watch behaves over time and the legacy-code edge case — leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the retired-code successor mapping and diacritic-insensitive county matching. The description mostly restates this; the only added nuance is that the successor watch emits a warning, which is marginal.

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 ('Watch a CAEN activity code') plus the outcome ('for newly registered companies') and optional county scoping. This is clearly distinguishable from the company-level watch_company sibling and from poll_watchlist, which the description treats as a separate mechanic.

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?

The description establishes when this applies (monitoring newly registered companies, optionally narrowed to one county) and explains that poll_watchlist is what advances the cutoff, giving the agent the surrounding workflow. It does not explicitly state when to prefer watch_company or list_watches instead, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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

All Leadgen ONRC Romania 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.