Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic

Suggest French company names (free)

suggest_company_names
Read-only

FREE. French company name autocomplete: type the beginning of a company name and get up to 5 matches with SIREN, city, postcode, NAF code and active/ceased status. Use it FIRST to turn a name into the SIREN that every other Sirenic tool takes as input — no account, no API key, no payment. Source: the official INSEE Sirene register (open data), companies and sole traders whose record is publicly diffusible. Matches the START of the name, then whole words; no typo tolerance and no match-confidence score — for those, plus the full profile, use search_french_companies ($0.002) and get_french_company_profile ($0.005).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesStart of the company name (3 characters minimum once cleaned up), or a 9-digit SIREN — labelled ("SIREN : 552 032 534") is fine.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses free access with no account/API key, the INSEE Sirene source, the public-diffusibility limitation, the matching order, and the absence of typo tolerance/confidence scoring. Since annotations already indicate read-only/open-world behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting them.

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?

Information is well front-loaded with the free status and primary use case, followed by source, matching behavior, and alternatives. There is slight redundancy between 'FREE' and 'no account, no API key, no payment,' but the overall structure is dense without being wasteful.

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?

Covers input constraints, output fields, data source, limitations, and alternative tools. With an output schema present and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The single q parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 3-character minimum and the option to pass a SIREN. The description restates that input pattern but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a concrete autocomplete action on French company names, listing the exact output fields: up to 5 matches with SIREN, city, postcode, NAF code, and active/ceased status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_french_companies and get_french_company_profile, making its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit 'Use it FIRST' instruction and explains that its output, the SIREN, feeds every other Sirenic tool. It also provides clear exclusions (no typo tolerance, no match-confidence score) and names the alternatives to use when those features are needed.

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