UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Get Charity Profile

dd_charity_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full Charity Commission profile for a charity number.

Returns trustees, latest income/expenditure, insolvency flags, governing document type, classifications, and countries of operation. Use charity_search first to find the charity number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`charity_number`	Yes	Charity Commission registration number (e.g. '1234567'). Returned by charity_search.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	No	Registered address of the charity (joined address lines).
`insolvent`	No	True if the charity is flagged as insolvent.
`reg_status`	No	Registration status code ('R', 'RM').
`charity_name`	No	Registered charity name.
`charity_type`	No	Charity type.
`latest_income`	No	Latest filed annual income in GBP.
`trustee_names`	No	Trustees on record. Truncated to 30 entries.
`charity_number`	Yes	Charity registration number.
`who_what_where`	No	Who/What/Where classification entries. The list may be truncated truncated to 50 entries.
`reg_status_label`	No	Human-readable registration status.
`in_administration`	No	True if the charity is in administration.
`latest_expenditure`	No	Latest filed annual expenditure in GBP.
`trustee_names_total`	No	Total trustees upstream before truncation.
`date_of_registration`	No	Date of first registration.
`who_what_where_total`	No	Total classification entries upstream before truncation.
`charity_co_reg_number`	No	Companies House number for charities also registered as companies (Charitable Incorporated Organisations, etc.).
`countries_of_operation`	No	Countries the charity operates in (capped at 10 upstream).
`trustee_names_truncated`	No	True if the trustee list was truncated.
`who_what_where_truncated`	No	True if the classification list was truncated.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds useful context about the data fields (e.g., insolvency flags) but does not disclose potential edge-case behaviors like missing data or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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-loading the core purpose and then listing returns and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description provides enough context: it names the data source, lists returned content, and gives the prerequisite workflow. An output schema exists, so detailed return formatting is not needed here.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the schema description already explains what charity_number is and where it comes from. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific detail beyond the implied meaning of 'charity number', so the baseline of 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 'Fetch the full Charity Commission profile for a charity number', using a specific verb and resource. It also lists the key data returned (trustees, income/expenditure, insolvency flags, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dd_charity_search.

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?

The description explicitly instructs 'Use charity_search first to find the charity number', which establishes the correct workflow and distinguishes when to use this tool vs. the search tool. This is direct, actionable guidance on usage context.

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

All UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.

Tool Count4/5

70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?