Skip to main content
Glama

Mapa Societario — Spanish Company Registry (BORME)

search_officers

Find 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role) is 'active' when the appointment is still in force, 'ceased' once the registry has inscribed the cessation, and 'superseded' when the registry inscribed NO cessation but a successor was appointed to the post — common for auditors. 'ceased' and 'superseded' are BOTH closed seats: never describe either as a current directorship. 'unknown' means the registry gave no usable status, so do not assert the seat is either held or closed. Each role also carries date where the registry recorded one: the APPOINTMENT date for an active role, the CESSATION date for a ceased one, and for a 'superseded' role the successor's appointment date (NOT this person's exit — the registry inscribed none) — read it against that role’s status, never as a single “since”.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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson name or partial name.
limitNoMax rows (1-25, default 10).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It exhaustively explains row semantics, role fields, three status values and their closed/unknown interpretations, per-status date meanings, first_appointed/history, ordering by live companies, count distinctions, lower-bound truncation, and row links. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Though long, every sentence delivers necessary semantic precision — status distinctions, date pitfalls, count definitions — that would otherwise cause errors. The core purpose is front-loaded, and details are organized by field in a readable, backtick-structured flow. No sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description provides a near-complete behavioral contract: it covers all return fields, status meanings, date semantics, ordering, and edge cases like revoke-and-reappoint and truncation lower bounds. An agent can invoke it correctly with no external documentation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both name and limit, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral effect of limit (live companies first, truncated list keeps them) and that name is partial-match, which aids correct invocation.

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 verb and resource: it finds a person in the BORME registry and lists the companies they are linked to, framed by the exact question 'is officer Z present in other companies?'. This clearly differentiates it from company-centric siblings like search_companies.

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?

The context is clear — this is the tool for person-to-company lookups — but it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when to avoid them. The intended use is strongly implied rather than contrasted with alternatives, so it does not reach a 5.

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