Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Czech company insolvency (ISIR)

get_czech_company_insolvency
Read-only

Insolvency record of a Czech company from the official ISIR register (Insolvenční rejstřík, Ministry of Justice), history since 2008: every proceeding with its case number (spisová značka), court, published status (úpadek, konkurs, reorganizace, oddlužení...), opening and closing dates, claim-filing deadline and its event trail with official document links — Czech labels as published. The event list is capped at the 100 MOST RECENT events per case: nombre_evenements carries the real total and evenements_tronques says whether it is truncated. Publication is compulsory by Czech law, so a company with no proceeding gets an explicit positive answer (aucune_procedure: true), dated by collecte_le (last complete collection; a stale stock returns 503 rather than a stale clean answer). LEGAL-PERSON debtors only: natural persons are excluded at ingestion (GDPR minimisation), so a sole trader's or other natural person's IČO — the majority of Czech IČOs — is refused (404) rather than reported as clean. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icoYes8-digit Czech IČO (company identification number), e.g. 45274649
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; KYB, batch KYB, sanctions, intelligence and the five invoicing tools (prepare_french_invoice_file, prepare_european_invoice_file, prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient, verify_iban_bank, validate_eu_vat_number) also carry a `provenance` array — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means). Codes are documented at GET /v1/provenance/registres (free).
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`.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: the event list is capped at 100 most recent events with truncation flags, a company with no proceeding gets an explicit positive answer (aucune_procedure) with collection date, stale data returns 503 rather than a stale clean answer, and natural persons are refused with 404. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 dense and long, but every sentence carries distinct value — data content, truncation behavior, empty-result semantics, legal scope, and payment. It front-loads the core resource and then layers necessary caveats. Slightly verbose but justified given the operational nuances it must convey.

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?

The description is complete for effective invocation: it covers the data source and history, result contents, truncation behavior, empty-result handling, stale-data error, legal-person restriction, 404 behavior, and payment method. The presence of an output schema means return-value shape doesn't need to be in the description. Nothing an agent needs to know to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: what an IČO represents, that it must belong to a legal person, and why natural-person IČOs are refused. This helps the agent anticipate 404 errors and interpret the result correctly.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Insolvency record of a Czech company from the official ISIR register', then details exactly what is returned (proceedings, case numbers, statuses, dates, event trail). The scope is unambiguous and clearly distinct from country-specific siblings like get_uk_company_insolvency or get_latvian_company_insolvency.

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 description clearly scopes when to use the tool: for Czech legal-person insolvency. It explicitly states a when-not case — natural persons are excluded and their IČO returns 404 rather than a clean report. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other countries, but the sibling set makes that obvious; the exclusion guidance is strong enough for a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sirenic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several French company bundles overlap in purpose (get_french_company_file, get_french_company_kyb_file, get_french_company_intelligence, get_french_company_health_summary) and procurement/competitor tools overlap (get_french_company_public_procurement, get_eu_procurement_awards, get_company_procurement_competitors). Although descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool when looking for a company overview or procurement history.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/search_ + country + entity pattern, e.g. get_french_company_profile, list_danish_company_filings, so navigation is predictable. Deviations like check_french_regulator_alerts, suggest_company_names, verify_iban_bank, and the prepare_* verbs are understandable but break the strict verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

77 tools is excessive for a single server regardless of how broad the domain is; the calibration treats 50+ as an extreme mismatch. While France is well covered and several countries appear, much of the surface is micro-endpoints (list_/get_ filing pairs per country) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

France coverage is impressively complete (identity, financials, legal events, procurement, IP, risk, surveillance, invoicing), and the surveillance lifecycle has create/get/renew/stop. But European coverage is inconsistent: Germany has only insider transactions, Spain only acts, and several major jurisdictions lack accounts/officers/insolvency; an agent expecting 'European company due diligence' will hit dead ends.

Resources