Distil — Machine-Native Public Data Refinery

Search UK Companies

search_uk_companies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches across official UK registered companies by legal entity name or trade name with live Companies House registry fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of matching companies to return (default 5, max 20).
`query`	Yes	Company name, trade name, or partial search term (e.g. 'Barclays', 'Tesco').
`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.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'live Companies House registry fallback,' which hints at a caching/fallback mechanism but does not explain the dual-mode behavior (cache vs. live) or the associated surcharge. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the added context is minimal but not contradictory.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the differentiator (live fallback). It contains no filler or redundant phrases and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The output schema and parameter descriptions cover return values and spend-control behavior. The tool description, while concise, conveys the essential purpose and fallback behavior. It could hint more explicitly at the caching/performance trade-off, but that is already captured in the parameter schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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 all parameters (query, limit, forceFresh, maxAgeHours) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description repeats that the search is by legal entity or trade name, which mirrors the query parameter description but adds no new semantic detail. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('searches'), a specific resource ('official UK registered companies'), and the search basis ('by legal entity name or trade name'). It also mentions a live registry fallback, which differentiates it from similar tools for other countries (e.g., search_us_companies) and from specific getter tools like get_uk_company_filing. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct among siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and scope—it is clearly for finding UK companies by name. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative search tools (e.g., search_fr_companies) or when to use get_uk_company_filing instead. No exclusions or conditions are stated, so the agent must infer selection from context.

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?