Skip to main content
Glama

Bradshaw UK funding rounds

Search UK companies

search_companies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and filter UK private companies by name, number, sector, region, status, rounds and amount raised. Source: UK Companies House filings (SH01 share allotments and the accounts filed with them). Every figure carries its working and a link to the filing page it was read from. Figures are as filed; nothing is guessed. Returns a page of companies, most priced rounds first; use page for more.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoCompany name, trading name or number.
incNoIncorporated window: 12m or from..to.
perNoRows per page: 25 (default), 50 or 100.
lastNoWindow of the last round.
pageNoPage number, from 1.
sortNorounds (default, most first), name, inc, last or raised; a leading - sorts descending.
grantNoyes or no: holds public grants.
raisedNoTotal raised in pounds as a range.
regionNoRegion slug(s).
roundsNoNumber of priced rounds as a range.
sectorNoSector slug(s).
statusNoactive, dissolved, liquidation, administration, receivership, voluntary-arrangement.
postcodeNoPostcode or outward-code prefix (spaces ignored).
employeesNoAverage employees as a range.
net_assetsNoNet assets in pounds as a range.
constituencyNoParliamentary constituency slug(s).
accounts_sizeNolarge (full or group accounts), medium or small (small and micro), comma separated.
company_classNopublic, vehicle, subsidiary or independent (comma separated). Default: all classes.
corp_investorNoyes or no: has a corporate shareholder on the PSC register.
turnover_bandNoTurnover band of the latest filed accounts, pounds only: under-1m, 1m-10m, 10m-50m, 50m-250m, over-250m (comma separated, any of).
employees_bandNoAverage employees band of the latest filed accounts: 1-9, 10-49, 50-249, 250-999, 1000-plus (comma separated, any of).
local_authorityNoLocal authority slug(s).
ceremonial_countyNoCeremonial county slug(s) from the geography seed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description is free to add provenance the agent could not otherwise know: data is derived from Companies House SH01 share allotments and accounts, every figure is traceable to a filing page, and nothing is estimated. It does not mention rate limits or result caps, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then provenance, then return and pagination behavior — a sensible order. 'Every figure carries its working and a link to the filing page it was read from' and 'Figures are as filed; nothing is guessed' overlap somewhat, but both reinforce the reliability claim so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 23-parameter search with no output schema, the description explains ordering and pagination but never describes what a returned company record contains (raised, rounds, status, sector, etc.). Combined with no guidance on combining filters or handling empty results, there is a real gap for a tool this broad, though annotations cover the safety profile.

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 every one of the 23 parameters is already documented, including sort defaults and range syntax. The description only echoes the facet list and the default ordering, adding essentially no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (search and filter) and resource (UK private companies) plus the filterable facets, and the sibling list confirms this is the collection-level search versus get_company/search_rounds. An agent can tell immediately what it retrieves and what it does not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives useful invocation context — default ordering is 'most priced rounds first' and 'use `page` for more' — but never states when to prefer a sibling such as get_company for a single record or search_rounds for round-level data. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than routed explicitly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources