Skip to main content
Glama

WhiteIntel — Ownership Intelligence

by dev.whiteintel

list_asset_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

The WhiteIntel ASSET-ownership coverage map — who owns the plane / yacht / property, and HOW we hold that link. The companion to list_jurisdictions for physical assets. Each row is one asset class × area with a tier: deep = we ingest a bulk source that ties the asset to an OWNER (e.g. FAA US aircraft, HM Land Registry UK property) · indexed = held only via leaks/sanctions (e.g. a yacht reached through an offshore SPV in the ICIJ leaks) · on_demand = the source is closed/paid, so the record is procured from source on a paid request · community = SnitchBoard crowd tips. Also links_to_owner — CRITICAL, because many asset registries publish only the registration mark and NOT the owner: an offshore aircraft register (Isle of Man, Bermuda) names the SPV/owner-trust, not the human behind it, so deep there is still the SPV layer, and piercing to the beneficial owner is an on_demand bizjet-ownership buy. Read this before claiming we do or do not hold ownership for an aircraft/vessel/real-estate entity. No vendor or price is exposed. Returns { assets, count, classes, tiers, note }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the meaning of tiers and a cautionary note to read before claiming ownership, but it does not introduce new behavioral details beyond what annotations already cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but well-structured, using separators to break down tier definitions. It is somewhat long but remains focused and informative, avoiding unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the meaning of each tier and the distinction between deep and indexed links, which is sufficient context for understanding the tool's output. It does not need to explain return values further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are missing.

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 provides an asset-ownership coverage map, specifying asset types (plane, yacht, property) and how ownership links are held. It distinguishes itself from list_jurisdictions by targeting physical assets, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions it is a companion to list_jurisdictions for physical assets, implying when to use it. It also explains the tier meanings (deep, indexed, on_demand, community) to guide users in interpreting the coverage, though it does not explicitly contrast with other tools beyond list_jurisdictions.

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

All WhiteIntel — Ownership Intelligence 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (search, lookup, get details, graph traversal, coverage maps, payment). Some overlap exists between lookup_company and lookup_by_identifier (both resolve identifiers, though one is UK-specific), and between get_entity vs get_company_details, but descriptions clarify distinctions. find_similar and semantic_search both find similar entities but different mechanisms.

Naming Consistency3/5

Uses a mix of verb_noun and noun_phrases: buy_dossier, claim_dossier, check_offshore_exposure, find_similar, get_pricing, get_pulse, graph_neighbourhood, list_asset_coverage, lookup_by_identifier, search_entities, trace_ownership_path. While most use underscores and verbs like get/lookup/search/list, there are inconsistencies like 'graph_neighbourhood' (noun start) vs 'trace_ownership_path' (verb start). Overall readable but not perfectly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is at the high end but justifiable for a comprehensive intelligence server covering search, lookup, graph, coverage, payments, and entity details. 'buy_dossier' is considered one of the tools and adds bulk but not excessive. It is appropriate for the scope.

Completeness4/5

Covers a wide range: search (search_entities, search_companies, semantic_search), identifier lookup (lookup_by_identifier, lookup_company), entity details (get_entity, get_company_details, get_financials), graph (graph_neighbourhood, graph_path, trace_ownership_path), coverage maps (list_jurisdictions, list_asset_coverage), sanctions (get_sanctions, check_offshore_exposure), plus payment flow (get_pricing, buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_payment_link). Missing perhaps a 'get_relationships' separate tool but get_entity includes direct relationships. Also no explicit 'list_entities' but search covers it. Minor gaps like no bulk operations besides resolve.

Resources