Skip to main content
Glama

Cypriot company officers (DRCOR)

get_cypriot_company_officers
Read-only

Cypriot company officers from the Registrar of Companies open data (DRCOR, data.gov.cy, CC BY 4.0, monthly national snapshot): every mandate published for the company — directors, alternate directors, company secretaries, assistant and deputy secretaries, authorised persons of overseas companies — with the register's Greek role label and a closed-list family (role.famille), sorted by family then name; aucun_mandat_publie is measured on the complete snapshot. Name and role only: the source publishes no birth date, address, nationality or appointment date, and does not tell natural persons and corporate officers apart. Legal persons only: HE (company) and AE (overseas company); business names, partnerships and BN are refused before payment. 503 fail-closed when the monthly snapshot is missing or older than 45 days. Paid via x402 ($0.01).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCypriot registration number with its prefix: HE (company) or AE (overseas company), e.g. HE165 or AE1 (ΗΕ 165 accepted)
api_keyNoOptional Sirenic API key (srn_live_…) to pay with prepaid credits instead of x402 — no wallet needed. Get one at https://api.sirenic.eu/compte. Ignored when x_payment is provided (the signed payment wins). On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error, not an x402 quote.
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe signable x402 payment requirements when payment_required is true: {x402Version, accepts[]} where each entry carries scheme, network, amount, asset and payTo (USDC and EURC options at the same numeric amount). Sign one entry and call again with `x_payment`.
resultatNoThe endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature, and every paid JSON response carries a `provenance` array (all tools since 2026-09-06) — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means), plus the common per-block envelope: `etat` in a closed list (servi, absence_mesuree, absence_non_conclusive, partiel, perime, indisponible, sans_objet), `motif` when unavailable, `age_jours` (only for publication or ingestion dates), `couverture` (complete / partielle / non_mesurable with its measure) and `confiance` in bands (faible / moyenne / forte, only where a measure grounds it, never averaged across blocks). Read the states before the numbers: an absence_non_conclusive, indisponible or partiel block is never « nothing to report » — only absence_mesuree asserts an absence. Register codes: GET /v1/provenance/registres ; states, closed lists and reading rules: GET /v1/lecture (both free). The PDF tools carry no JSON envelope (the PDF report prints it).
payment_requiredYesTrue when this response is an x402 payment quote instead of data: settle one of the quote's `accepts` options and call the tool again with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: monthly snapshot semantics, 503 fail-closed behavior, sorting order, lack of natural/corporate distinction, and the $0.01 payment requirement. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no true filler, but the opening sentence is dense, combining source attribution, license, role enumeration, sorting, and a field reference. It is justified information but would benefit from clearer separation.

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 read-only officer lookup with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers return semantics, source limitations, unsupported legal forms, payment behavior, and failure mode. No significant decision-relevant information is missing.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the HE/AE interpretation and adds that invalid entity classes are refused before payment, but it does not materially expand meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: Cypriot company officers from DRCOR, with the exact officer types returned and the role-family structure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_danish_company_officers or get_uk_company_officers.

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?

It gives explicit boundaries: only HE/AE legal persons are accepted, business names/partnerships/BN are refused, and the source lacks appointment dates and personal details, helping an agent decide when this tool is not appropriate. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but the entity-type and country exclusions are clear.

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