Skip to main content
Glama

Estonian company officers and governance

get_estonian_company_officers
Read-only

Officers and governance of an Estonian company from the official e-Business Register open data (RIK, CC BY 4.0), refreshed daily from the national photo: management board members, procurators, liquidators, bankruptcy trustees, general and limited partners, contact persons, share-register keepers (persons entered on the registry card), plus supervisory board members and chair, audit firms, auditors and bankruptcy committee members recorded beside the card. organe and role are closed lists with the register's code and wording (GET /v1/lecture); current mandates only — the source publishes no end date or history — with the registration date; standard representation rules (statutory template texts) and special conditions (type only). GDPR: natural persons come with first name, last name and role only — never the published identifier hash, birth date, address or e-mail. Legal persons only: sole proprietorships (FIE) are refused (404, payment cancelled). A known legal person with no registered role gets aucun_mandat_inscrit: true. Paid via x402 ($0.01 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
registrikoodYes8-digit Estonian registry code (registrikood, e-Business Register), e.g. 10003666

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the current-mandates-only limitation, absence of end dates/history, GDPR redaction rules, the 404/payment cancellation for FIE, the no-role marker, and the x402 payment cost. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

The description is long but exceptionally information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and every clause contributing a constraint or behavioral detail. The phrasing is occasionally awkward, but there is no fluff and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered. The description adds coverage of data source, refresh cadence, role taxonomy, current-mandate scope, GDPR limitations, legal-person restriction, error behavior, and payment mechanism. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that registrikood must belong to a legal person (FIE is rejected) and by explaining the x402 payment flow that governs the x_payment parameter.

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 clearly identifies the resource as officers and governance of an Estonian company and enumerates the exact role categories returned. This distinguishes it from Estonian siblings like get_estonian_company_accounts and get_estonian_company_shareholders, as well as from other countries' officer 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?

The description gives clear context: it is for Estonian companies only, returns current mandates only, and explicitly excludes sole proprietorships (FIE), which are refused with a 404. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance, but the usage conditions are unambiguous.

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