DataNexus MCP

nonprofit_fetch_charity_uk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch UK registered charity details by charity number or organisation name. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. UK only. charity_number_or_name: UK registered charity number (7 digits, e.g. 1234567) or full/partial organisation name. Required. Returns registration status, income, expenditure, activities, and trustee count. Use this for UK charities. Use nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_by_ein or nonprofit_search_nonprofits_by_name for US nonprofits. Verified source: UK Charity Commission OGL v3. 24-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="nonprofit_fetch_charity_uk", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`charity_number_or_name`	Yes	UK charity number e.g. 1089464 or name substring. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. UK only. 24-hour cache. Verified source.' No contradiction; adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

Description is comprehensive but includes feedback reporting instructions that could be separated. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains concise given the amount of useful information.

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?

With only one parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and clear description of returns, the tool definition is fully complete for its simple purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the parameter. The description adds format details: '7 digits, e.g. 1234567' and notes it can be a full/partial name, which goes beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches UK registered charity details by charity number or organisation name. It specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'UK registered charity details', and the input type, distinguishing it from sibling tools for US nonprofits.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for UK charities) and when not to (for US nonprofits, recommending alternative sibling tools). Also includes instruction to report feedback if the response doesn't serve the user's need.

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

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?