Skip to main content
Glama

Get capital history, cap tables and M&A of a Danish company

get_capital_overview
Read-only

Capital history of one Danish company as the SelskabsInfo due diligence report shows it. Every formation, capital increase (each tranche on its own), reduction and ownership change without a capital change (M&A), with the subscription rate (kurs), price per share, subscription amount (tegningsbeloeb), payment type and post-money valuation; the owners at each round as the ownership register's bands; who left, entered or changed band in each ownership change; per round an estimated cap table (shares before and after, new shares, estimated investment per owner) and the likely investors; an accumulated cap table (each owner's band in each round); and statistics (total raised, largest and average round, raised per year, highest and latest valuation, months since the latest raise). Amounts are in each round's "valuta" (DKK for almost every company; "valutaer" lists every currency the capital has had), so name that currency rather than assume kroner. Share counts and investments are estimates from the bands at a nominal value of 1 per share in that currency unless the registration text says otherwise, so present them as estimates and relay "forbehold". "kursOplyst": false means no rate was registered and par is assumed. An ownership change has no price: the purchase price is not public. The rounds are listed oldest first; a long history keeps the most recent 20 and says so. Requires the Pro plan or higher and costs 3 credits; on a lower plan get_capital_events lists the registered capital changes alone.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cvrYesThe 8-digit Danish CVR number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses plan requirements, credit cost, currency handling, estimation caveats, the meaning of kursOplyst=false, that ownership changes have no public purchase price, ordering, and truncation to the most recent 20 rounds. These are valuable behavioral details not present in the annotations or schema.

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 text is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, but it is a dense single paragraph with many semicolon-separated clauses. It is appropriately comprehensive for a complex due diligence tool, though it could be easier to scan if structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returned content. It covers the main outputs, estimation caveats, currency behavior, ownership-change limitations, history truncation, and access requirements, making it complete enough to call correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single cvr parameter with an 8-digit pattern, and the description adds no further parameter-specific syntax or constraints. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 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 resource (capital history of one Danish company) and enumerates exactly what is returned: formation, capital increases, reductions, ownership changes, cap tables and statistics. It also differentiates from the sibling get_capital_events, which is positioned as the lower-plan alternative for registered capital changes alone.

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 gives explicit usage context: requires Pro plan or higher and costs 3 credits, and on a lower plan the agent should use get_capital_events instead. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

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