Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Search BODACC announcements

search_bodacc_announcements
Read-only

Search French BODACC legal announcements by CRITERIA instead of by company — the monitoring question no other Sirenic tool answers: WHICH companies entered insolvency proceedings in department 59 this week? Pick a family (collective/insolvency proceedings, deregistrations, sales and transfers, incorporations, accounts filings, conciliation, professional recovery, modifications, registrations, miscellaneous), a date window (depuis, optional jusqu_a) and optionally a French department code. Returns up to 100 announcements, newest first, each with SIREN, court, town, department and a STRUCTURED judgment (nature, date, family), plus tronque when there were more. The judgment's operative FREE TEXT is deliberately removed everywhere — it names court-appointed administrators with their address — so facts living only in that text (the date of cessation of payments, for one) are NOT here: follow url_bodacc, or get_french_company_alerts for a single company. Announcements about SOLE TRADERS are deliberately EXCLUDED (their name is personal data) and their count is returned in exclues_personnes_physiques, and records whose person type was unreadable are counted apart in exclues_type_indetermine (fail-closed guard). An announcement is not a verdict: the insolvency family also contains closures and cancellations — read the CURRENT state with get_french_company_alerts or get_french_company_failure_score. Paid via x402 ($0.03 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depuisYesStart of the publication window, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2026-08-04
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.
familleYesFamily code (upstream BODACC codes): dpc (accounts filings, the largest family), modification, creation, radiation, collective (insolvency proceedings), vente, immatriculation, divers, conciliation, retablissement_professionnel
jusqu_aNoOptional end of the window, YYYY-MM-DD
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.
departementNoOptional French department code: 01-95 except 20, 2A, 2B, 971-978 (e.g. 59 for Nord)

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: 100-result cap, newest-first ordering, tronque flag, deliberate removal of free-text judgment details, exclusion of sole traders with fail-closed counts, and the warning that insolvency announcements are not verdicts. This goes far beyond what annotations or schema provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Long but tightly packed: every sentence contributes either purpose, result shape, exclusions, limitations, follow-up guidance, or pricing. It is front-loaded with the core differentiator and a concrete example, then moves logically through behavior and caveats.

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 complex search tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers selection criteria, returned fields, pagination/truncation, excluded records, fail-closed behavior, payment, and when to use alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by translating family codes into plain-language categories, giving a concrete department example (59), clarifying the depuis/jusqu_a window semantics, and explaining the x402 payment context. This goes beyond just restating the schema.

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, resource, and the key inversion: searching BODACC announcements by criteria rather than by company. The example monitoring question makes the purpose immediately concrete and distinguishes it from company-centric siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: cohort-level monitoring questions like insolvencies in department 59 this week, with options for family, date window, and department. It names alternatives for follow-up on individual companies and current state. However, the exact sibling names referenced (get_french_company_alerts, get_french_company_failure_score) are not in the provided sibling list, which slightly weakens actionability.

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