Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Family Office Registry

by com.familyofficeregistry
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search the family office registry

search_registry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search verified family offices and related firms in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, Dubai (free, no names) and the US (registered advisers). Returns one page of open records — the same fields the public site publishes. Named people, contact channels, source lists and verification notes need a subscription. The skill resource says what the registry holds and does not hold.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree text. Without a key it looks in the open fields (name, city, register id, legal form, focus tags); with one, in the people and the purpose clauses too. For a place, filter by canton or country.
pageNo
sizeNoResults per page, capped at 25 without a subscription key.
typeNo
allocNoSubscription only: list firms by how they invest. Without a key the search refuses this filter; get_record gives any one firm's call free.
cantonNoSwiss canton code, e.g. ZH, ZG, GE.
countryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / purpose
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional. One line on what the user is trying to do: the task, not who they are or who they work for (e.g. \"shortlisting Zurich multi-family offices for a fund raise\"). Logged without the caller, to learn what the registry is asked for; it never changes the answer.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / purpose
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. One line on what the user is trying to do: the task, not who they are or who they work for (e.g. \"shortlisting Zurich multi-family offices for a fund raise\"). Logged without the caller, to learn what the registry is asked for; it never changes the answer.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / country / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "CH",
-  "LI",
-  "AT",
-  "DE",
-  "AE"
-]New value: +[
+  "CH",
+  "LI",
+  "AT",
+  "DE",
+  "AE",
+  "US"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the added value here is the tier-gating disclosure: which fields are public versus subscription-only, and that Dubai is free with no names while the US covers registered advisers. It doesn't state result-limit or error behavior, but the key behavioral constraint is disclosed.

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?

Four compact sentences, each doing work: purpose and coverage, return shape, gating, and a pointer to the skill resource. No filler, though the closing pointer sentence is a slight detour from the call itself.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema and useful annotations, the description supplies the return shape, regional coverage and tier limits an agent needs. Remaining gaps (pagination behavior, result counts) are minor and partly carried by the schema defaults.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description explains the paid/free split for the `alloc` filter and points at canton/country for places. However, `type` (SFO/MFO/intermediary) gets no explanation in either schema or description, and `q` semantics are already covered by the schema, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search verified family offices and related firms') plus the geographic and tiered scope, so an agent knows exactly what is searched. The 'Returns one page of open records' line implicitly separates it from get_record, but the sibling is never named, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies: free anonymous search returns open fields only, named people/contacts/source lists need a subscription, and the skill resource describes registry coverage. No explicit exclusions or named alternative (get_record) are stated in the description itself.

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

All Family Office Registry toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources