Skip to main content
Glama

Lithuanian company insolvency (JAR and AVNT)

get_lithuanian_company_insolvency
Read-only

Lithuanian company insolvency status from two official open-data sources (data.gov.lt, CC BY 4.0, daily snapshot): the legal status at the Juridinių asmenų registras (31 closed-list codes — bankruptcy opened, bankrupt, in liquidation, liquidation due to bankruptcy, restructuring, removed…) and the AVNT case files since 2020 — bankruptcies (court, initiator, opening, liquidation, termination, closing and removal dates, simplified procedure, intentional-bankruptcy ruling), restructurings (plan approval, end) and intentional bankruptcies, each with en_cours derived from the published dates. aucune_procedure: true is a measured fact on both complete snapshots for a company known to the register; AVNT only goes back to 2020. Unknown JAR code = 404 (no charge). Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kodasYes9-digit Lithuanian JAR code (Juridinių asmenų registras), e.g. 304500803
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?

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description substantially extends them with source provenance, license, snapshot frequency, closed-list code coverage, date fields, derived en_cours status, and the measured-fact semantics of aucune_procedure. It also states the 404/no-charge behavior and x402 payment details. No statement contradicts the 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 clause carries relevant information: data sources, scope, date coverage, edge cases, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler; the only minor downside is that it is one long, heavily parenthesized sentence rather than broken into scannable parts.

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, paid API tool, the description covers the input, payment method, error/edge-case behavior, data sources, coverage limitations, and key output semantics. Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Since the input schema documents kodas, api_key, and x_payment at 100% coverage, the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds useful context—JAR code meaning, 404 for unknown codes, and $0.02 pricing—but not enough to raise the score above the high-schema-coverage baseline.

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 precise verb/resource ('get Lithuanian company insolvency status') and details exactly what is returned: legal-status codes from JAR and AVNT case files since 2020, including bankruptcies and restructurings. This clearly distinguishes it from other country insolvency tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_latvian_company_insolvency) and from general company data 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 intended use case—Lithuanian company insolvency checks—is clear, and the description supplies important usage boundaries: data is a daily snapshot, AVNT coverage starts in 2020, and unknown JAR codes return 404. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the country-specific scope is 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