Skip to main content
Glama

Prometiam Risk Intelligence

Search corporate insolvency notices

insolvency_notices_search
Read-only

Search CORPORATE insolvency notices published in official gazettes and registers across France, Germany, the UK, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, Croatia, Sweden, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Singapore. Use this for distress coverage in all sixteen markets. DE, AT, US and NL notices stand alone: they are not linked to company records (German and US company records come from other sources and do not carry them). FR, GB, NO and ES notices are linked by company number or NIF, and the notices of the other registry countries can be cross-referenced against companies_search with the same country code (for FI, DK, HR, SE and CH the notices are linked by business ID, CVR number, MBS, organisationsnummer and UID: a company record with include=insolvency returns them; a Swiss notice is linked only where the SHAB notice names the debtor's UID, and one without a UID stays unlinked). DK notices come from CVR credit information (konkurs and tvangsakkord: one notice per proceeding, dated by the decision that opened it, with the latest stage of the proceeding; no court or case number); HR notices are court decisions from the Croatian court register (only companies still on the register); SE notices are Bolagsverket's procedure data (konkurs, företagsrekonstruktion, ackordsförhandling), updated weekly, with no court, case number or link, and proceedings that ended before collection are not included. Belgium and Slovakia are not insolvency markets (their bankruptcy shows in the company status). Spanish notices are the concurso entries (declaration, opening of the liquidation phase, conclusion) published in BORME since 2009, one per court resolution, linked by NIF and dated by the court's resolution date with the BORME publication date alongside (a median of about ten weeks later, sometimes more than a year); legal entities with a NIF only, judge and administrator never served, and an entry that cannot be tied to the company, or whose NIF is an administrator's, is withheld. Latvian notices are the Insolvency Register's insolvency and legal protection proceedings, an opening notice and a closing notice each, since 2008, with court and case number where stated, linked by registration number, legal persons of the commercial register only, updated daily. Estonian notices are bankruptcy declarations from the e-Business Register, one per register entry, dated by the entry (a few days after the court's order), linked by registry code, with no court, case number, trustee or closing notice, for companies still on the register, in liquidation or in bankruptcy only (a floor), sole traders (FIE) never served. Singapore notices are the corporate notices of the Singapore Government Gazette (egazette.gov.sg), back to September 1998: winding-up applications and orders, judicial management, and the steps of a creditors' voluntary or court-ordered liquidation (resolutions, meetings of creditors, claims and dividend notices), dated by the order, filing or resolution date where the notice prints it, else by its first publication, with the court and case number where it prints them; members' voluntary (solvent) liquidations are not included and no liquidator, judicial manager or other natural person is served; linked to the company record by the UEN (a company record with include=insolvency returns them), and a notice that prints no valid UEN stays unlinked. Spanish notices: based on data from the Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado (BORME). Contains data from the Insolvency Register of the Republic of Latvia (Register of Enterprises), CC0. Contains data from the Estonian e-Business Register (RIK), CC BY 4.0. Source: Republic of Singapore Government Gazette, www.egazette.gov.sg. The e-Gazettes are subject to copyright of the Singapore Government and are reproduced here with the permission of the Singapore Government. You may check www.egazette.gov.sg for the latest e-Gazettes. US notices are not linked to the US company records. Personal/consumer insolvency is deliberately excluded and is never returned. Distinct from insolvency_search, which covers the linked ES/FR/GB risk-notice corpus. Contains CVR data (Erhvervsstyrelsen), CC BY 4.0.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCompany name — matched anywhere in the normalized name (min 2 characters).
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (1–100, default 20).
cursorNoPagination cursor — pass the previous response's pagination.next_cursor, unchanged, to fetch the next page (a company name search issues o:<n>, the rows already served).
countryNoInsolvency-coverage country. This is NOT the same set as the company-registry countries.
date_toNoFiling date on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
date_fromNoFiling date on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
event_typeNoNotice type, e.g. insolvency, dissolution, liquidation, forced_sale.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial behavioral context: the 16-country scope, exclusion of personal/consumer insolvency, stand-alone DE/AT/US/NL notices, and per-country linking and date limitations. These details materially affect interpretation of results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling paragraph with repeated statements (e.g., US notices not linked, Spanish notices discussed twice) and legal attribution, making it far longer than needed. This hurts scanability for an agent.

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?

For a complex 16-market search with many linkage caveats, the description gives thorough coverage of which notices exist, how they link to company records, and key exclusions. Although it lacks return-shape details, the schema covers all inputs and annotations cover safety, so the definition is functionally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents name, limit, cursor, country, dates, and event_type. The description adds country-specific date semantics (e.g., ES BORME publication vs court resolution, DK decision date, EE register entry date) and country linkage rules, which go beyond the schema but are not organized parameter-by-parameter.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation ('Search CORPORATE insolvency notices') and resource ('notices published in official gazettes and registers'), and the closing line explicitly distinguishes it from insolvency_search's linked ES/FR/GB risk-notice corpus. An agent can identify this as the broad multi-country gazette notice search.

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?

It says 'Use this for distress coverage in all sixteen markets' and names insolvency_search as the alternative, with country-specific linkage caveats. However, it does not explicitly route against insolvency_check, insolvency_record, or events_search, and the guidance is buried in coverage prose.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources