Skip to main content
Glama

Romanian company insolvency (ONRC register)

get_romanian_company_insolvency
Read-only

Romanian company insolvency from the ONRC register open data (data.gov.ro, CC BY 4.0, monthly national snapshot): the register status codes of the bankruptcy (faliment), insolvency (Law 85/2014, Law 85/2006, Law 64/1995, judicial reorganisation, financial recovery), liquidation and dissolution families with their published Romanian labels and a closed family, plus the insolvency practitioners published among the legal representatives (judicial liquidator, judicial administrator, special or concordat administrator, liquidator — name and capacity only); aucune_procedure = no such status AND no practitioner, measured on the complete snapshot for a known CUI; statuses are undated and court decisions are not published, so a closed proceeding may remain recorded (autres_statuts carries the other register entries). Legal persons only. 503 fail-closed when the snapshot is missing or older than 70 days. Paid via x402 ($0.02).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cuiYesRomanian CUI / fiscal code, 1 to 10 digits, with or without the RO prefix, e.g. 412052 or RO412052
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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: 503 fail-closed on missing/over-70-day snapshot, $0.02 x402 payment, undated statuses where closed proceedings may remain recorded, and the CC BY 4.0 licensed monthly national snapshot. No contradiction with 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Information-dense and front-loaded with purpose, but delivered as a single run-on paragraph with heavy parentheticals (law citations, multiple administrator types) that is hard to scan. Every sentence earns its place, yet the formatting undercuts readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is complex (multiple status families, practitioners, payment, failure modes), the description covers data source, license, staleness caveat, fail-closed behavior, and payment. Nearly everything an agent needs is present, slightly marred by unstructured delivery.

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 per-parameter descriptions (CUI pattern with examples, api_key behavior, x_payment precedence). The description adds only marginal parameter context (works on a known CUI, measured on complete snapshot), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (Romanian company insolvency from the ONRC register open data) and enumerates exact status families (bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution) plus practitioners. The Romanian scope and topic clearly separate it from the many sibling insolvency tools (Croatian, Latvian, UK, Swiss) and from get_romanian_company_officers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear scope context (legal persons only, known CUI, complete snapshot) but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it. With roughly ten sibling insolvency tools and a Romanian officers tool, explicit routing would help, though the country+topic in the name already disambiguates.

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