UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Search Charity Commission Register

dd_charity_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Charity Commission register of England and Wales by name or keyword.

Returns matching charities with registration number, status, and registration date. Use charity_profile for full details once you have the charity number. The upstream searchCharityName endpoint returns the full list in one shot — pagination is applied client-side via offset/limit. A query that matches nothing is a successful empty result (charities: []), not an error — the upstream endpoint signals "no matches" with an HTTP 404, which is translated back into an empty result here rather than surfaced as a not-found failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max items to return in this page. Default 20; raise to 100 for bulk views.
`query`	Yes	Charity name or keyword to search for
`offset`	No	Number of items to skip before this page. Default 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	Yes	Max items requested for this page.
`query`	Yes	Search term applied.
`total`	Yes	Total matches returned by upstream.
`offset`	Yes	Number of items skipped before this page (client-side).
`has_more`	Yes	True if more items may exist beyond this page. Re-call with offset=offset+returned to continue.
`returned`	Yes	Items actually returned on this page.
`charities`	No	Matching charity records.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: the upstream endpoint returns the full list in one shot with client-side pagination, and a no-match query is a successful empty array rather than an error because an upstream 404 is translated to 'charities: []'. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting normal empty results.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose/return fields, routing to charity_profile, pagination behavior, and empty-result handling. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's modest complexity, complete parameter schemas, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it searches, what it returns, how pagination works, and how no-match results are signalled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents query, limit, and offset. The description reinforces that query is a name or keyword but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Search the Charity Commission register of England and Wales') and names the returned fields: registration number, status, and registration date. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling charity profile tool by saying to use charity_profile for full details once a charity number is known.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: to search the charity register by name or keyword. It also provides an explicit routing instruction to charity_profile for full detail. It does not enumerate exclusions or contrast with generic search siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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?