eurc402 — EU compliance (VAT + company data)
Server Details
Free EU VAT (VIES) + pan-EU company data (10 registers), payable in EURC/USDC via x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a completely distinct purpose: listing supported countries, looking up company data (with free detection and paid full record), and validating EU VAT numbers. No functional overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_supported_countries, lookup_eu_company, validate_eu_vat) using lowercase with underscores, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused EU compliance server covering coverage discovery, company lookup, and VAT validation without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the core needs for EU compliance (VAT validation, company lookup, and country coverage), with clear free/paid boundaries. Minor gap: no tool for directly initiating payments or managing credits, but instructions are provided.
Available Tools
3 toolslist_supported_countriesList supported EU registersAInspect
List the EU company registers currently covered by lookup_eu_company / the paid eu-company endpoint, with each register's country, source, licence, whether officers are returned, and the identifier format. FREE. Call this to discover coverage before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it's FREE (no cost) and lists output fields, implying read-only behavior. Could be more explicit about being idempotent or safe, but 'discover coverage before paying' suggests no side effects. Lacks rate limit info, but acceptable for simple list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first describes output details, second commands usage. No filler. Front-loaded with key purpose and output fields. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low complexity tool with 0 params and no output schema. Description covers purpose, output fields, and usage context (free, pre-payment check). Could mention response format (JSON) or pagination, but overall sufficient given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline 4. Description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and its context (coverage for lookup_eu_company). No param details needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists EU company registers covered by lookup_eu_company/eu-company endpoint, detailing output fields (country, source, licence, officers, identifier format). Title 'List supported EU registers' matches. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on coverage discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this to discover coverage before paying.' This tells when to use (before paid lookup) and implies alternative (direct lookup). The 'FREE' highlights it's safe and cost-free, guiding agent decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_eu_companyLook up an EU company (paid full record)BInspect
Detect the jurisdiction of a company registration number for FREE across 10 EU registers (no, fr, fi, sk, gb, lv, ro, ee, cz, pl). The FULL normalized record (legal name, status, legal form, registered address, incorporation date, officers, provenance) is a PAID x402 service (EUR 0.05/call in EURC or USDC on Base) — this tool returns the exact paid endpoint, price, and how to pay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company/registration number: SIREN (FR), org.nr (NO), Y-tunnus (FI), IČO (SK), company number (UK), regcode (LV), CUI or J-number (RO). | |
| country | No | Optional ISO country code to disambiguate; otherwise auto-detected from the id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions free detection and paid details but doesn't fully clarify whether the tool executes the paid call or only returns payment instructions. Side effects, authentication, and rate limits are not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey key information, though the density of details slightly impacts readability. Front-loaded with the most important point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations or output schema, the description adequately informs about free jurisdiction detection and paid endpoint info, but lacks details on the return format of the free part.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects jurisdiction for free and returns paid endpoint details. However, the title suggests a full paid lookup, which may cause slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_supported_countries or validate_eu_vat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_eu_vatValidate EU VAT number (VIES)AInspect
Validate an EU VAT number against the official EU VIES registry. FREE. Returns whether the number is currently valid and, when the member state discloses it, the registered company name and address. Covers all 27 EU member states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat | Yes | EU VAT number: 2-letter country code + number, e.g. IT08714440016. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses conditional behavior (company details only when disclosed) and that the service is free. Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but is reasonably transparent for a simple validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action and result. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description adequately covers what is returned (validity, optional name/address). Could add notes on error responses or edge cases, but sufficient for a simple validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the format example already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool validates EU VAT numbers against the official VIES registry, specifies what it returns (validity, optional company name/address), and covers all 27 states, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions it is free and covers all EU states, implying general use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!