eu-registry
Server Details
EU company registry lookup across 16 countries incl. Sweden Bolagsverket.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 3
- 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_company retrieves by national ID, lookup_company_by_vat validates VAT numbers, and search_company finds companies by name. There is no ambiguity between the tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_company, lookup_company_by_vat, search_company). The naming is predictable and clear.
With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped for European business registry lookups. While it covers the essential operations, the low count suggests a narrow focus; however, each tool is comprehensive across many countries.
The server covers core registry operations: get by ID, search by name, and VAT validation. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list supported countries or registry types, but the main workflows are well covered.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_companyARead-onlyInspect
Get a non-Czech company by national ID and country code. Supported: gb (CRN), sk (IČO), pl (KRS number), nl/it/at/es/be/lt (VAT via VIES), de (LEI), fr (SIREN), no (organization number), dk (CVR number), fi (Business ID), ee (registry code), se (10-digit organisation number via Bolagsverket).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | National company ID, e.g. UK Companies House CRN "14356670". | |
| country | Yes | ISO alpha-2 code or supported country name. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds useful info on supported ID formats but no deeper behavioral traits like rate limits or auth.
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?
Description is a single concise sentence that front-loads purpose. Could be more structured as a list but is efficient and informative.
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 simple 2-param lookup tool with no output schema, description covers input requirements adequately. Could mention what is returned (e.g., company details) but absent output schema, this is acceptable.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage of parameters. Description enriches by mapping countries to specific ID formats (e.g., 'gb (CRN)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'non-Czech company' by national ID and country code. Lists supported countries and ID types, distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_company_by_vat.
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?
Provides clear context of supported IDs and countries, implying when to use this tool (e.g., if you have a specific national ID). However, no explicit when-not or alternatives given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_company_by_vatARead-onlyInspect
Free VIES VAT lookup. Returns VAT validity plus name/address when the member state discloses them; some countries such as ES/DE may return only validity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat | Yes | EU VAT number including ISO-2 country prefix, e.g. "NL123456789B01". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it's free, and some countries (ES/DE) return only validity, not full details. This adds context 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and caveats. No unnecessary words.
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 simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what to expect: validity and optional details. Country-specific behavior is noted, but no mention of error handling or response format.
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 description coverage, the parameter vat is already well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'EU VAT number including ISO-2 country prefix'). The description does not add further semantic value.
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 tool's purpose: 'Free VIES VAT lookup. Returns VAT validity plus name/address...' It distinguishes from siblings like get_company and search_company by specifying it's VAT-specific and mentions country-specific behavior.
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?
The description notes it's free but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or when not to. It provides some context (country limitations) but lacks alternative recommendations.
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/IT/AT/ES/BE/LT (GLEIF/LEI only; exact VAT data via lookup_company_by_vat or get_company with VAT), DE (GLEIF/LEI), FR (SIRENE), NO (BRREG), DK (CVR), FI (PRH YTJ), EE (RIK open data), SE (GLEIF/LEI name search; use get_company for full Bolagsverket data).
| 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 alpha-2 code or supported country name, e.g. "GB", "UK", or "United Kingdom". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds detailed behavioral context like supported registries per country and data limitations, without contradiction.
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?
Concise single sentence with non-wasteful listing; could benefit from slight structural formatting but remains effective and front-loaded.
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 no output schema and many countries, the description provides thorough guidance on per-country capabilities and alternatives. Lacks output format details but otherwise complete.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters; the description adds context for the 'country' parameter by listing supported values and behaviors, enhancing beyond schema.
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 tool searches non-Czech business registries by company name, and distinguishes from siblings by listing specific country behaviors and alternatives like lookup_company_by_vat or get_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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives per country, e.g., for NL/IT/AT/ES it notes only GLEIF/LEI data and directs to other tools for exact VAT data.
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.