Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

French company court decisions

get_french_company_court_decisions
Read-only

Commercial-court decisions linked to a French company (SIREN) from the Cour de cassation open data (Judilibre): counts, closed-list nature (insolvency judgment, order or judgment to pay, summary proceedings, expert appraisal, other dispute), the company's role (claimant, defendant), the other companies involved (SIREN only) and the official link to each decision. No text, no individual's name, no amount: read the decision at the source. Coverage is partial and measured (about 62% of decisions carry a usable identifier) — no result never means no litigation; insolvency judgments are also served by get_french_company_legal_alerts. A sole proprietorship answers 400 and is never charged. Paid via x402 ($0.01 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sirenYes9-digit SIREN of a legal entity
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?

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, it discloses specific behaviors: coverage is partial (~62%), missing results don't rule out litigation, sole proprietorships return 400, and the payment mechanism (x402) and cost are specified. This added context is actionable and not redundant with annotations.

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 but every sentence contributes: purpose, content, exclusions, coverage, alternative, error case, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary caveats without excessive verbosity.

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 covers all essential operational aspects: what data is returned, what is excluded, coverage limitations, an alternative tool, error handling for sole proprietorships, and pricing. Given that an output schema exists, the description is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (siren, api_key, x_payment), so the schema already fully explains them. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states it provides commercial-court decisions for a French company (SIREN) from Judilibre, and enumerates the specific content (counts, closed-list nature, role, other companies, official link). It also names a related sibling tool (get_french_company_legal_alerts) for insolvency judgments, helping distinguish it.

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 clear context on what to expect (partial coverage, absence of results doesn't mean no litigation) and mentions an alternative for insolvency judgments (get_french_company_legal_alerts). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings beyond that single alternative, so it stops short of a full usage guide.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources