Skip to main content
Glama

Danmark Data

Search Danish companies

search_companies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Danish companies in the CVR register by name. Returns CVR number, name, status, address, legal form and industry for each match. Use get_company for full details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results
queryYesCompany name or part of it, e.g. 'Novo Nordisk'. A CVR number also works.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result field list, but that is already conveyed by the output schema, and it says nothing about partial-match behavior, relevance/ordering, or what happens on zero 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, ending with the sibling pointer. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only minor gaps remain: ranking/pagination of results and empty-result behavior.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema itself, including the CVR-number fallback. The description contributes only the name-based framing, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Danish companies in the CVR register by name') plus the scope (Denmark/CVR) and the return fields, so an agent can distinguish it from get_company and from address/phone siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes full-detail lookups to get_company, which gives a clear use/use-instead split. It does not spell out when this search is inappropriate (e.g., searching by address or phone should use search_address), but the name-based scope is clear enough to infer.

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.

Resources