Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

UK accounts list (Companies House)

list_uk_company_accounts
Read-only

UK company annual accounts — list the financial years of a UK company whose iXBRL accounts (Companies House Accounts Data Product, Open Government Licence v3.0) have been decoded: balance-sheet dates, period, entity name, currency, accounting framework (micro-entity, FRS 102...) and accounts type. Electronically filed accounts only (~75% of UK filings) and depth accumulated since 2026-07 — an empty answer does not mean no accounts exist. Paid via x402 ($0.01 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
company_numberYesCompanies House company number, 8 characters incl. leading zeros, e.g. 00095407 or SC123456

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; 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_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`.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: data is limited to electronically filed iXBRL accounts (~75% of filings), depth accumulated since 2026-07, and an empty answer does not mean no accounts exist. It also explains the payment behavior (x402 quote vs prepaid credits via api_key) and error condition for insufficient credit. This goes beyond 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 a single rich paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and scoping limitations, then adds payment details. It is information-dense but not bloated; every sentence adds value. Slightly long, but earned.

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 list tool with an output schema present, an explicit required parameter, full schema coverage, and supportive annotations, the description covers the critical context: what data is returned, its limitations, how payment works, and the open-world caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about company_number format and payment flow via x402/api_key, but most parameter-level meaning is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase ('list the financial years of a UK company') and identifies the exact resource and nuances (balance-sheet dates, period, entity name, currency, accounting framework, accounts type). It also states the source data product and license. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_uk_company_accounts (which likely retrieves a specific filing) and comparable tools for other countries.

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 does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it provides strong usage context: it applies to UK companies' iXBRL accounts, clarifies what is included (electronically filed only ~75%, depth since 2026-07), and warns that an empty answer does not mean no accounts exist. It lacks a direct when-not-to-use pointer, but the context is clear enough.

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
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