Global FinReg

Create a Global FinReg account

create_user

Idempotent

Creates a Global FinReg account for a user from their email address, so they can order and manage LEIs. GFR emails the address a link to set a password; you get no access to the account from this tool. After the user has set a password, register for access with /auth.md and use the account tools. If the address already has an account nothing changes, and the answer is the same. Ask the user for their email address, first name and last name, and confirm them with them before calling.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The user's email address. The account and all GFR emails use it.
`lastName`	Yes	The user's last name, as the user gave it. Required.
`firstName`	Yes	The user's first name, as the user gave it. Required.
`currencyCode`	No	Currency for prices and invoices, e.g. EUR, DKK, SEK, NOK, USD, GBP. Default EUR.	EUR
`languageCode`	No	Language code for the account, e.g. en, da, nn (Norwegian), sv, de, fr. The welcome email is in en, da, nn or sv, otherwise English. Default en.	en

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / firstName / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / firstName / description

Previous value: -"The user's first name."New value: +"The user's first name, as the user gave it. Required."

removedInput schema / properties / lastName / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / lastName / description

Previous value: -"The user's last name."New value: +"The user's last name, as the user gave it. Required."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "email"
-]New value: +[
+  "email",
+  "firstName",
+  "lastName"
+]

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), it discloses the concrete side effect (GFR emails a password-setup link), the access boundary ('you get no access to the account from this tool'), and confirms idempotent behavior with detail ('nothing changes, and the answer is the same'). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then the hand-off path; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with the /auth.md routing detail, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, and it still covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: prerequisites, the email side effect, the fact that no account access is granted here, and what to do next. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so email, firstName, lastName, currencyCode and languageCode are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the three names/email are required and user-supplied, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a Global FinReg account for a user from their email address') and states the downstream purpose (ordering and managing LEIs). It is trivially distinguishable from all four siblings, which are read-only lookup tools.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions ('Ask the user for their email address, first name and last name, and confirm them with them before calling') and explicit follow-up routing ('After the user has set a password, register for access with /auth.md and use the account tools'). It also states the no-op case when the address already has an account.

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

All Global FinReg tools Inspect

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

Need Help?