Search Spanish companies and directors from the official BORME registry and map their links.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_company retrieves a single company's profile, get_company_network shows connections between companies, search_companies finds companies by name, and search_officers finds a person and their linked companies. The descriptions explicitly guide when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_company, get_company_network, search_companies, search_officers. The verbs 'get' and 'search' are used appropriately for retrieval vs. lookup, and the naming is predictable and clear.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying a Spanish company registry. The count covers the essential operations (search, details, network, officers) without being too few or excessive, each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of querying company registry data: searching for companies, retrieving detailed profiles, exploring corporate networks, and investigating officer connections. There are no obvious gaps for this read-only domain, and edge cases (former names, truncation, status) are well-handled.
get_companyAInspectGet the BORME registry profile of one Spanish company: status, incorporation, current and former officers, sole shareholder (BORME records only sole-shareholder ownership), and — where available — NIF, share capital and registered address. NIF is never in BORME, and capital/address are missing for entities last amended before 2009; such values may be filled by web search and are flagged *_external: true (verify before relying on them). Officers are capped at the 25 most relevant (board/management before apoderados) with *_officers_total counts and an officers_truncated flag — large companies register hundreds of apoderados. Includes a mapasocietario.es link to cite. Resolves to exactly one entity by its current OR former name (company renames are handled) and returns not-found rather than a near-miss — if unsure of the exact name, call search_companies first. name is always the company's CURRENT name; if you queried an old name (or the result's name looks unrelated to your query), check former_names — it lists every prior registered name (registry-recorded 'Cambio de denominación social') before assuming this is the wrong company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Company name (fuzzy-resolved to one entity). | |
| slug | No | A mapasocietario /empresa slug, e.g. 'acme-sl'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses data limitations (NIF never in BORME, capital/address missing for old entities), flags for external data (*_external: true), officer caps (25 most relevant with truncation indicator), name handling (current vs former names), and not-found behavior. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long but every sentence earns its place by providing essential context. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details edge cases and caveats. Could be more structured with bullet points, but as a free-text description it is well-organized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (Spanish company registry with multiple fields, officer caps, name history, external data flags) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what data is returned, what is missing, how to interpret flags, and how to handle name variations. It also mentions a mapasocietario.es link for citation, making the output fully actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described), but the description adds significant value: it explains that 'name' is fuzzy-resolved to one entity and that 'slug' is a mapasocietario-style identifier. It also clarifies that the returned 'name' field always holds the current name, which is not evident from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description precisely states the tool retrieves the BORME registry profile of one Spanish company, listing specific data fields (status, incorporation, officers, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies by explicitly directing the agent to use search_companies when unsure of the exact name, and from get_company_network by implication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it resolves to exactly one entity, returns not-found instead of near-miss, and advises calling search_companies first if the name is uncertain. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_company_networkAInspectShow companies directly connected to one Spanish company: via a shared board/management officer (shared_officer — apoderados and representatives are excluded as low-signal), via being owned by it (owns), or via owning it (owned_by). Answers 'is there a relationship between company X and company Y?'. shared_officer edges carry status: 'active' means the shared officer still holds the seat at the connected company, 'ceased' means the registry has inscribed their cessation there — a ceased edge is a HISTORICAL link, do not report it as a current one. Active edges are listed first, so a truncated list keeps the live relationships. Resolves to one entity by current or former name (renames handled). Each connection links to mapasocietario.es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Company name (fuzzy-resolved). | |
| slug | No | A mapasocietario /empresa slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it resolves by current/former names, excludes low-signal officers, sorts active edges first, and clarifies that ceased edges are historical links not to be reported as current. This goes beyond what annotations would typically cover (e.g., sorting behavior, historical link warning). The description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at ~80 words and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds value (relationship types, exclusion rule, query purpose, edge status, sorting behavior, renaming handling, external link). One minor improvement would be to avoid the technical parenthetical '(shared_officer — apoderados...)' which could be slightly clearer, but overall it's well-structured without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a discovery tool with good sibling context. It explains the relationship types, edge lifecycle (active/ceased), sorting, and entity resolution. Without an output schema, the description could hint at the return structure (e.g., that each connection includes a 'status' field), but it does mention that shared_officer edges carry status. A minor gap: it doesn't specify whether owns/owned_by edges have any status concept. Overall very good.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'name' and 'slug' are documented in the schema). The description adds value by explaining fuzzy resolution and the slug being from mapasocietario /empresa, but these are largely redundant with the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows companies connected to a Spanish company via three specific relationship types (shared_officer, owns, owned_by), and explicitly answers 'is there a relationship between company X and company Y?'. It provides specific detail about what is included/excluded (e.g., apoderados and representatives excluded from shared_officer) and the resolving behavior. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings like search_companies or get_company.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('answers is there a relationship...') and what it covers (Spanish company, specific connection types). It provides critical guidance on not reporting ceased edges as current ones. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools (get_company, search_companies, search_officers) are contextually distinct, and the description makes when-to-use unambiguous. The implicit not-for-free-text-search or general company lookup is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_companiesAInspectSearch Spanish companies by name in the BORME registry. Returns ranked matches (fuzzy — tolerant of typos) with status and a mapasocietario.es/empresa link to cite. A hit's name is always its CURRENT registered name; when the entity has been renamed, former_names lists its prior name(s) — a hit whose name differs from your query is not necessarily a wrong match, check former_names first. Use this first to resolve a company before get_company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Company name or partial name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: fuzzy matching tolerant of typos, returns status and link, and explains the name/former_names logic in detail (current name always present, former_names lists prior names, a hit with different name is not necessarily wrong). This is exceptionally transparent for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return details, behavioral nuance, and usage recommendation. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details (fuzzy matching, result structure with name, former_names, link, status) and provides usage context. No gaps are apparent for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the critical nuance that the search is fuzzy and tolerant of typos, which enhances understanding of the query parameter beyond the schema. This justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search Spanish companies by name in the BORME registry', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_company by explicitly saying 'Use this first to resolve a company before get_company', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes explicit guidance: 'Use this first to resolve a company before get_company', indicating when to use this tool versus an alternative. Also implies it is for initial fuzzy lookups and advises checking former_names if the name differs from the query, aiding correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_officersAInspectFind a person (administrator/director/apoderado) in the BORME registry and list the companies they are linked to. Answers 'is officer Z present in other companies?'. Returns ONE row per company, with roles listing every post held there. status (per row and per role) is 'active' when the appointment is still in force and 'ceased' once the registry has inscribed the cessation — never describe a ceased role as a current directorship. Each role also carries date where the registry recorded one: the APPOINTMENT date for an active role, the CESSATION date for a ceased one — read it against that role’s status, never as a single “since”. When the officer held the seat before that (a revoke-and-reappoint, common in Spanish registries), the role also carries first_appointed — cite THAT for “since when”, not date — and history, every published act newest-first. Companies where the person is still in office come first, so a truncated list keeps the live ones. companies_total/companies_active count COMPANIES and seats_total counts appointment rows — cite the company figures when asked how many companies someone sits on. counts_are_lower_bound: true means more companies exist than could be read. Each row links to mapasocietario.es/empresa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Person name or partial name. | |
| limit | No | Max rows (1-25, default 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively explains key behaviors: status field interpretation ('active' vs 'ceased'), date field semantics (role-specific, never a single 'since'), first_appointed for history, row ordering (active companies first), count semantics (companies vs seats), and the lower_bound flag. This is exceptional transparency for a tool with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive yet efficient, packing substantial behavioral detail into a dense paragraph. Every sentence adds value beyond the schema. However, it could benefit from slight structural breaks (e.g., bullet points) for longer descriptions, and it is somewhat long. A 4 reflects good conciseness with minor room for improvement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining all return fields (status, date, first_appointed, history, companies_total, companies_active, seats_total, counts_are_lower_bound, links). The 2 required/optional parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description is complete for an effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'name' is for partial match and that 'limit' controls max rows (1-25, default 10) and its relation to ordering (truncated list keeps live ones). The schema already describes the parameters adequately, but the description provides additional nuance that justifies a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'person in the BORME registry', specifies the types of persons (administrator/director/apoderado), and distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings by explicitly contrasting it with listing companies linked to an officer rather than searching for companies or getting company details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: answering whether an officer is present in other companies. It also includes implicit context that this is for BORME registry data, and the sibling tool names (get_company, get_company_network, search_companies) further help differentiate usage without needing explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.
