Skip to main content
Glama

Romanian company legal representatives (ONRC)

get_romanian_company_officers
Read-only

Romanian company legal representatives from the ONRC open data (data.gov.ro, CC BY 4.0, monthly national snapshot): every mandate published for every registration of the CUI — administrators, permanent representatives of corporate administrators, general director, supervisory board and directorate members, liquidators, judicial and special administrators — with the register's Romanian label, a closed-list family (role.famille) and the nature (natural person or entity, inferred from the presence of a birth date); sorted by family then name, duplicates across re-registrations merged; aucun_mandat_publie is measured on the complete snapshot. Name and role only: birth date, birthplace and domicile published by the source are never stored. Legal persons only (sole traders and family enterprises are refused 404). 503 fail-closed when the monthly snapshot is missing or older than 70 days. Paid via x402 ($0.01).

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, disclosing the data source (ONRC open data, CC BY 4.0, monthly snapshot), sorting and deduplication behavior, privacy policy (birth date, birthplace, domicile never stored), refusal conditions, and fail-closed error behavior for stale snapshots. It also mentions payment via x402.

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 efficiently structured, leading with the core purpose and data source, then enumerating details in a logical flow. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though it is lengthy; it earns a high score for being comprehensive without redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return-value details and instead covers the critical operational aspects: data freshness, error handling, exclusions, sorting, deduplication, privacy constraints, and payment mechanism. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (cui, api_key, x_payment). The description does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; it mainly adds context about the tool's output limitations (name and role only) rather than parameter specifics.

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 states precisely that it retrieves Romanian company legal representatives from ONRC open data, enumerating the types of representatives and the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from other country-specific officer tools by its Romanian scope and specific data source.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (for legal persons) and explicit exclusions (sole traders and family enterprises are refused 404). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the country-specific purpose is self-evident among the many sibling officer tools.

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