Skip to main content
Glama

Check a Danish VAT number

get_vat_status
Read-only

Check whether DK plus a CVR number is a valid, active VAT number, and get the name and address the VAT register holds for it, which is worth comparing with the CVR name when verifying a counterparty. Answers in two fields, and the difference between them matters: "momsnummerGyldigt" is the register's literal answer about the NUMBER and is what an invoicing decision turns on, while "momsregistreret" is the inference about the COMPANY and is never false, because a group company in a joint registration settles VAT under another SE number and so shows up as invalid while plainly being VAT registered. Never tell a user a company is not VAT registered on the strength of an invalid number: say the number is not valid, and read the "forbehold" field aloud. VAT registration is not held in the CVR register at all, so this answer comes from a different source than every other tool here and can differ from it. Requires the Starter plan or higher and costs 1 credit. A momentary failure at the VAT register returns an error rather than a guessed "no", so treat an error as "unknown" and try again.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cvrYesThe 8-digit Danish CVR number. The VAT number checked is DK plus this number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: the two output fields and their critical difference, why 'momsregistreret' is never false (joint registrations under another SE number), the 'forbehold' caveat, plan/credit cost, and error-not-guess semantics on register failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries operational value (field semantics, caveat, cost, error handling). It is dense and some clauses are long, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on explaining the return fields and their interpretation. Combined with cost, source, and failure-mode guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates that the checked VAT number is DK plus the CVR number, adding only marginal clarification over the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether DK + CVR is a valid, active VAT number and returns the register's name/address. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from every sibling by noting the VAT data comes from a different source than the other tools.

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?

Explains the situation (verifying a counterparty's VAT status, comparing against the CVR name) and gives strong when-not guidance: don't declare a company non-registered on an invalid number, treat errors as 'unknown' and retry. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the source distinction from siblings supplies the routing context.

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