capabilities

Get legal entity profile by LEI from the GLEIF register

entity_lei_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the registry-authoritative GLEIF record for a Legal Entity Identifier — legal and previous names, legal and headquarters addresses, jurisdiction, legal form, entity and registration status, renewal dates (with days until renewal), managing LOU, corroboration level, BIC codes and the named local registry. Use when: Look up everything the LEI register holds for this identifier. Not for: You only have a company name — use entity.lei.search first. Related: entity_lei_search; company_uk_profile; company_uk_status; company_us_profile. Price: USD 0.004/call (x402), 0.003 (account key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lei`	Yes	20-character ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (18 alphanumerics + 2 check digits). Case-insensitive. The structure is checked before payment, so a wrong-shaped LEI is rejected on the 402 (details.input_validation). The ISO 7064 MOD 97-10 checksum cannot be expressed as a schema pattern and is verified at execution: it fails with INVALID_INPUT before any upstream call and before settlement, so a bad checksum is never charged for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Capability output; full JSON Schema at https://api.eckari.com/v1/capabilities/entity.lei.profile
`meta`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the input validation behavior (checksum checked before execution, never charged for bad checksums) and pricing. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could be slightly more explicit about the read-only nature.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, usage guidance, related tools, and pricing. It front-loads the core functionality. However, the list of return fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. Still, it remains concise overall.

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?

Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, alternatives, pricing, validation behavior, and related tools. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'lei', with a detailed description including pattern, length, and checksum validation. The tool description adds 'Legal Entity Identifier' but does not significantly augment the schema's semantics. Given high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states 'Return the registry-authoritative GLEIF record for a Legal Entity Identifier' and lists specific fields (names, addresses, jurisdiction, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling entity_lei_search, which is used when the input is a company name rather than an LEI.

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?

The description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, stating to use when looking up everything the LEI register holds, and not for company name searches (directing to entity_lei_search). It also lists related tools, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All capabilities 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, targeting specific entities (UK company, US company, domain, LEI, FX, location, parcel, weather) or sub-aspects (e.g., accounts vs. charges vs. directors). Overlap exists between company.uk.profile and company.uk.status (both contain status info, but the latter is cheaper and focused). Also, company.uk.filings and company.us.filings_latest could be confused if an agent generalizes 'filings' across jurisdictions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: domain_entity_subject (e.g., company_uk_accounts, domain_expiry, weather_us_alerts). Underscores and lower case are used throughout. Verbs are implied by the noun (e.g., 'search' for lookup, 'detect' for identification). No mixed conventions or unpredictable names.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the high side but still reasonable for a general-purpose data server spanning multiple domains (company, domain, entity, fx, location, parcel, weather). Each domain gets a cohesive set, and the documentation justifies each tool. Could be slightly leaner if some niche tools (e.g., domain_expiry vs. registration) were merged, but overall scoping is acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Each domain offers good coverage: UK company tools cover CRUD-like operations (profile, status, search, filings, charges, directors, owners, registered office); similarly for US companies (profile, filings, resolve, latest filings). Weather has forecast, observation, alerts. Parcel only detects carrier (no tracking). Missing features like advanced filtering on company filings or less common domains, but core workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?