eu-registry
Server Details
EU company lookup — GB, SK, PL, NL, DE, FR via Companies House, GLEIF/LEI and SIRENE.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- cz-agents-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_company retrieves by specific ID (national ID + country code), while search_company finds companies by name. No overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_company, search_company) with snake_case, making them predictable.
With only 2 tools for a multi-country registry server, the surface is thin but not extreme. It covers the basic retrieval needs, but more tools could be expected for a comprehensive registry API.
The tools cover core operations (get by ID and search by name) for the supported countries. However, missing features like pagination for search, validation, or listing supported countries. Minor gaps exist.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_companyARead-onlyInspect
Get a non-Czech company by national ID and country code. Supported: gb (CRN), sk (IČO), pl (KRS number), nl (LEI), de (LEI), fr (SIREN).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | National company ID, e.g. UK Companies House CRN "14356670". | |
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. "gb". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. While it correctly implies a read operation consistent with 'readOnlyHint', it does not disclose potential outcomes (e.g., null return on not found), error conditions, or rate limits. The open-world hint is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence followed by a list. Every word is necessary, no redundancy. The critical information (action, parameters, supported cases) is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and constraints. However, it lacks any indication of the return structure or error handling, which is needed for complete understanding since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by enumerating supported country-to-ID-type mappings (e.g., gb uses CRN), which goes beyond the schema's generic examples. This helps the agent select the correct ID format per country.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a non-Czech company'), the required identifiers (national ID and country code), and explicitly lists supported countries and ID types. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_company', which likely performs broader searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_company'. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_companyARead-onlyInspect
Search non-Czech business registries by company name. Supported: GB (Companies House), SK (ORSR/RPO), PL (KRS), NL (GLEIF/LEI), DE (GLEIF/LEI), FR (SIRENE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company name or partial company name. | |
| limit | No | Max results per search, default 10, max 20. | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. "gb". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. Description adds only the list of supported registries and that it searches non-Czech registries, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states core functionality, second lists supported countries. Extremely concise with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope (non-Czech registries, specific countries) and parameter constraints. Could mention that results come from specified registries, but overall complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has full description coverage (100%) for all three parameters: name, limit, country. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Search non-Czech business registries by company name', specifying verb (Search) and resource (non-Czech business registries). Lists supported countries, distinguishing from sibling tool 'get_company' which likely retrieves a specific company.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description indicates what it does but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'get_company' or when not to use it. Implicit guidance via country list, but no clear context for exclusion or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.