Sirenic

UK beneficial owners (PSC)

get_uk_beneficial_owners

Read-only

UK beneficial owners (UBO) — PSC, persons with significant control — of a UK company, live from Companies House, the official UK company registry: individual and corporate-entity PSCs with natures of control (ownership/voting bands), notification dates, plus official PSC statements. Ceased PSCs are excluded by default (inclure_cesses adds them with their ceased date). No open UBO register exists for France — this is UK-only depth. Month+year of birth only, no addresses. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api_key`	No	Optional 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_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.
`company_number`	Yes	Companies House company number, 8 characters incl. leading zeros, e.g. 00102498 or SC123456
`inclure_cesses`	No	Include ceased PSCs (with their ceased_on date). Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hint`	No	How to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
`quote`	No	The 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`.
`resultat`	No	The endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature; KYB, batch KYB, sanctions, intelligence and the five invoicing tools (prepare_french_invoice_file, prepare_european_invoice_file, prepare_french_einvoicing_recipient, verify_iban_bank, validate_eu_vat_number) also carry a `provenance` array — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means). Codes are documented at GET /v1/provenance/registres (free).
`payment_required`	Yes	True 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`.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds valuable behaviour beyond that: data is live, ceased PSCs are excluded unless requested, only month+year of birth is returned, no addresses are included, and the tool is paid via x402. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the resource and content, then covers default behaviour, data limitations, and payment. The France note is somewhat tangential but earns its place by clarifying jurisdiction scope; there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers source, live data, returned content, default filtering, privacy limitations, and payment mechanism. An agent has enough to decide whether to call the tool and how to interpret its results.

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 four parameters. The description adds modest context about default exclusion of ceased PSCs and the ceased date, but it does not add new semantics for api_key or x_payment 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?

Description identifies the resource precisely: UK beneficial owners/PSC of a UK company from Companies House, and enumerates exactly what is returned (individual and corporate PSCs, natures of control, notification dates, PSC statements). The UK-only framing and 'No open UBO register exists for France' help distinguish it from country-specific sibling 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 description makes clear this is for UK companies with live Companies House data, and it explains the default ceased-PSC behaviour with the inclure_cesses parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the UK-only depth and UBO-specific scope provide strong contextual guidance on when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sirenic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several French company bundles overlap in purpose (get_french_company_file, get_french_company_kyb_file, get_french_company_intelligence, get_french_company_health_summary) and procurement/competitor tools overlap (get_french_company_public_procurement, get_eu_procurement_awards, get_company_procurement_competitors). Although descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool when looking for a company overview or procurement history.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/search_ + country + entity pattern, e.g. get_french_company_profile, list_danish_company_filings, so navigation is predictable. Deviations like check_french_regulator_alerts, suggest_company_names, verify_iban_bank, and the prepare_* verbs are understandable but break the strict verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

77 tools is excessive for a single server regardless of how broad the domain is; the calibration treats 50+ as an extreme mismatch. While France is well covered and several countries appear, much of the surface is micro-endpoints (list_/get_ filing pairs per country) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

France coverage is impressively complete (identity, financials, legal events, procurement, IP, risk, surveillance, invoicing), and the surveillance lifecycle has create/get/renew/stop. But European coverage is inconsistent: Germany has only insider transactions, Spain only acts, and several major jurisdictions lack accounts/officers/insolvency; an agent expecting 'European company due diligence' will hit dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?