RedTape: Spain, Mexico & Colombia business data

Colombia RUES company lookup by NIT

co_company_lookup

Read-only

Look up a Colombian legal entity / ESAL in RUES by NIT: razón social, cámara de comercio, estado de matrícula, CIIU activity codes, registration and renewal dates. Legal entities only; natural-person fields are never returned. Source: Confecámaras RUES via datos.gov.co (CC BY-SA 4.0); not an official RUES/DIAN service. Free: 20 calls per client per UTC day, shared by the Colombia tools (co_company_status, co_company_lookup). When the free quota is used up the tool returns an error naming the paid HTTP endpoint https://co.redtapeapi.com/v1/company/{nit} ($0.005 USDC per successful call over x402 on Base, no account or API key).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nit": "<nit>"
    },
    "name": "co_company_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nit`	Yes	Colombian NIT, digits with optional check digit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: daily quota, shared-counter behavior, explicit error-then-paid-endpoint fallback, and data-source/licensing caveats. The one weak spot is the opening sentence — translated below.

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 returned-field list and the legal-entity-only scope are correctly front-loaded, and the quota/fallback details are compressed into one final sentence. The pricing and x402 mechanism are the longest chunk, but they are decision-relevant for an agent that may hit the quota wall.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the job of describing the response, and it does so by listing the returned fields and explicitly ruling out natural-person data. Quota, cost, and source attribution are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single `nit` parameter is already documented as "digits with optional check digit." The description only restates "by NIT," adding no format, normalization, or failure-mode detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Look up a Colombian legal entity / ESAL in RUES by NIT") and enumerates the returned fields (razón social, cámara de comercio, estado de matrícula, CIIU codes, dates). It names sibling co_company_status only in the quota-sharing sentence, so the overlap between a full profile lookup and a status lookup is never clarified.

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 real call conditions: free 20 calls/client/UTC day shared across the two Colombia tools, an error naming a paid fallback endpoint with pricing, and the scope limit "Legal entities only; natural-person fields are never returned." It stops short of saying when an agent should prefer co_company_status over this tool.

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

All RedTape: Spain, Mexico & Colombia business data 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?