Skip to main content
Glama

dd

by dev.cz-agents

get_risk_timeline

Read-only

Build a chronologically sorted lifecycle timeline for a Czech company — basic events include company formation, statutory appointments, active insolvency, sanctions matches, VAT reliability flips. Returns events[] with riskScore 0-100. Pro Compliance tier or higher. For enriched timeline with ISIR lifecycle, address history, cross-entity events, and AI narrative summary, see get_risk_timeline_rich in @czagents/ddplus.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icoYesCzech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful context: chronological sorting, specific event types, riskScore range (0-100), and tier requirement. It does not contradict annotations and provides more behavioral detail than the annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details: event types, output shape, tier, and an alternative. No wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return structure (events[] with riskScore) and the tool's scope. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention potential omissions or sources.

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?

The sole parameter 'ico' is fully described in the schema as 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits', covering 100% of schema descriptions. The description does not need to add further parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the tool builds a chronologically sorted lifecycle timeline for a Czech company and lists the event types included. It differentiates from the richer sibling tool by specifying 'basic events' and pointing to get_risk_timeline_rich for an enriched version.

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 explicitly says 'Pro Compliance tier or higher' as a prerequisite and directs users to get_risk_timeline_rich when an enriched timeline is needed. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, fulfilling the dimension well.

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