Distil — Machine-Native Public Data Refinery

Get Cross Border Entity Graph

get_cross_border_entity_graph

Read-onlyIdempotent

Maps cross-border corporate parent-subsidiary relationships, multinational public tender wins, common directors, and historical state mutations across US, UK, France, Spain, and EU (< 2 KB).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`forceFresh`	No	Spend Control: When true, bypasses Edge KV cache and forces a real-time statutory primary registry call (applies 2.5x Freshness Inconvenience Surcharge). Default: false.
`identifier`	Yes	Company name, ticker, French SIREN, UK company number, or tender contractor name.
`maxAgeHours`	No	Spend Control: Maximum acceptable data age in hours (e.g. 48 for 2 days tolerance). If cache satisfies this, delivers sub-5ms at standard 1.0x Economy rate. Set to 0 to force live primary fetch.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`isError`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the response size constraint (<2 KB) and hints at temporal coverage through 'historical state mutations,' but does not describe caching, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what the parameter schema already covers.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the key relationship types, and tucks the size note at the end. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or 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?

The description covers the tool's scope, the types of relationships mapped, the geographic coverage, and even response size. With an output schema present, parameter schema at 100% coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and each parameter (identifier, forceFresh, maxAgeHours) already has detailed semantic documentation. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description begins with the specific verb 'Maps' and clearly identifies the resource: cross-border corporate parent-subsidiary relationships, tender wins, common directors, and historical state mutations. The geographic scope (US, UK, France, Spain, EU) and the graph-oriented output differentiate it from siblings like get_uk_corporate_network or get_eu_public_tender.

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 implies a clear use case: any request needing cross-border corporate relationships or multinational tender context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'cross-border' and jurisdiction scope provide clear context that distinguishes it from country-specific siblings.

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

All Distil — Machine-Native Public Data Refinery 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct data product: country-specific filings, tender records/search, risk scoring, sanctions screening, and entity graphs. The search/get split cleanly separates discovery from retrieval, and even similar country-specific tools are clearly qualified by region and entity type.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieval and search_* for discovery, with country or region qualifiers where applicable. Cross-cutting tools like get_corporate_risk_score and get_tender_intelligence fit the same pattern without feeling out of place.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the multi-country, multi-domain scope justifies nearly every tool. The set is heavier than a tightly focused server, yet no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core read-only workflow well: search to find entities or tenders, get to retrieve records, plus analytical tools for risk, sanctions, and tender intelligence. Minor gaps exist, such as no Spanish company registry access and no UK tender search, but these are workable and do not block primary due-diligence workflows.

Resources

Need Help?