Skip to main content
Glama

dd

by dev.cz-agents

get_eu_dd_report

Read-only

EU Due-Diligence report for an international company. Input: 20-char LEI code, or company name + optional country. Returns GLEIF entity data (status, address, registration number) plus sanctions screening against EU/OFAC lists. Coverage notes per country included. Note: GLEIF covers mid/large firms with LEI — SMEs may not be found. Pro Compliance tier or higher.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code — helps narrow name search, not needed for LEI lookup.
identifierYes20-char LEI code (e.g. "W38RGI023J3WT1HWRP32") or company name.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by detailing exactly what is returned (GLEIF entity data with status/address/registration number, sanctions screening against EU/OFAC lists), coverage notes, the SME limitation (important for expectations), and the tier requirement. This enriches behavioral understanding significantly.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, input, output, coverage note, limitation, and access tier are each stated in one short sentence or clause. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs, limitations, and prerequisites (tier). It addresses scope (EU/OFAC sanctions), data source (GLEIF), and coverage variability, making it complete enough for an agent to decide on invocation and set expectations.

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%, with both parameters already described in the schema (identifier as LEI or name, country as optional ISO code). The tool description repeats this and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The example LEI in the schema is sufficient; the description's mention adds little value.

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 clearly states the tool produces an 'EU Due-Diligence report' with a specific input format and return content (GLEIF data + sanctions screening). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dd_report by specifying EU/OFAC sanctions and GLEIF coverage, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: for EU due-diligence on international companies, especially those with LEI codes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context (EU focus, sanctions, GLEIF) provides clear guidance. The note about Pro Compliance tier and SME limitations also sets usage expectations.

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

All dd toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: address crowding, nominee directors, phoenix patterns, owners, statutory chains, timelines, and watch functionality are all separate. However, get_dd_report and get_risk_score overlap significantly (full report vs. just the score), and the three detect_* tools share a similar pattern but apply to different risk types.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (detect_, get_, watch_), but person_companies breaks this convention (noun_noun). The mix of detect_ and get_ verbs is consistent within their respective semantic groups, making the overall pattern readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a due-diligence domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (risk detection, reports, ownership, monitoring) without unnecessary bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal range.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core due-diligence lifecycle reasonably well: company facts, risk scoring, timeline, ownership, EU lookup, and monitoring onboarding. Minor gaps exist—watch_entity is a stub, and advanced features are explicitly deferred to a companion server (ddplus)—but these are acknowledged and don't break the primary workflows.

Resources