Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Irish company insolvency status (CRO)

get_irish_company_insolvency
Read-only

Insolvency status of an Irish company from the Companies Registration Office register (CRO Open Data, CC BY 4.0, complete daily snapshot): procedure DERIVED from the published status — liquidation, liquidation stayed, examinership, administration — with its date; strike-off (listed or struck off) and dissolution reported separately; aucune_procedure is a measured fact on the complete snapshot (the CRO publishes neither the liquidator nor court orders). 400 without charge for a malformed number, 404 without charge when unknown, 503 fail-closed without a fresh snapshot. Price $0.01. The company file itself is served by the generic EU company lookup with pays=IE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numeroYesIrish CRO company number: 1 to 7 digits, e.g. 600161 (IE prefix and leading zeros tolerated)
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the procedure is DERIVED from published status, that 'aucune_procedure' is a measured fact, and that the CRO publishes neither the liquidator nor court orders. It also details error behavior (400/404/503), pricing, and the complete daily snapshot, adding rich behavioral context not present in 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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, derivation caveat, missing-data limitation, error codes, pricing, and an explicit pointer to the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core resource and finishes with actionable logistics, with no fluff.

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 values do not need to be described. The description covers data provenance, licensing, derivation semantics, error handling, and the alternative file lookup, leaving no obvious gap an agent would need to resolve before calling the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for numero, api_key, and x_payment. The description adds slight context by linking the 400 error to 'malformed number' and explaining unknown numbers produce 404, but it does not substantially enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Insolvency status of an Irish company from the Companies Registration Office register', identifying the specific resource, country, and data source. It further distinguishes itself by noting 'The company file itself is served by the generic EU company lookup with pays=IE', so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not.

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 explicitly routes the agent to an alternative: 'The company file itself is served by the generic EU company lookup with pays=IE', and it gives error semantics (400/404/503) that shape expectations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling country-specific insolvency tools for other jurisdictions, relying instead on the title and sibling list to convey that scope.

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