Skip to main content
Glama

WhiteIntel — Ownership Intelligence

list_jurisdictions

Read-onlyIdempotent

The WhiteIntel coverage map — every jurisdiction we hold and HOW we hold it. Read this before telling anyone a country is or is not covered, because 'covered' means three different things. Each row carries tier: deep = we loaded the country's WHOLE national registry, so a name/number search resolves ANY company registered there; indexed = we hold only the leak / sanctions / GLEIF subset, so the entities that surfaced in a leak or on a sanctions list are searchable but the rest of that country's companies are NOT in the corpus; on_demand = the registry is closed or paid, so the specific record is procured from source when a dossier is purchased. Also scope (full = whole registry · subset = fragment), depth (ownership = owners/beneficial owners on the record · officers = directors · identity = name/number/address/status, owners procured on request) and registry (our loader, for deep tiers). So a deep+full+ownership row (e.g. gb, lv, ua, br) means you can trace owners for any company there; a subset row (e.g. cn, kr, most secrecy havens) means an empty search is 'not in the held subset', NOT 'does not exist' — the full record is bought on request. No per-record price or vendor is exposed. Returns { jurisdictions, count, tiers, note }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: tier semantics, the meaning of empty results for subset rows, and the 'procured from source' behavior for on_demand jurisdictions. This prevents misinterpretation of absence as non-existence.

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 longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and organized with backtick-delimited field definitions and concrete examples. It is dense rather than padded, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: '{ jurisdictions, count, tiers, note }' plus every row's tier/scope/depth/registry semantics. The nuanced coverage concepts are fully explained with examples, making the tool self-contained.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4; no parameter documentation is needed. The description instead documents the returned row fields and semantics, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 opens by defining the tool as 'The WhiteIntel coverage map — every jurisdiction we hold and HOW we hold it,' with a clear scope of returning jurisdictions and their tier/scope/depth. This is a specific, resource-oriented definition that distinguishes it from query/search siblings.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Read this before telling anyone a country is or is not covered' and then explains the three coverage meanings to prevent misuse. It also clarifies that per-record price/vendor is not exposed, setting boundaries for what this tool should not be used for.

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

Try in Browser

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.