Check one French company by name or SIREN and get its Nogogo A-E reliability grade for free.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools form a clean search-then-retrieve pipeline: find_french_company maps a name to a SIREN, and get_nogogo_grade consumes a SIREN to return the grade. Descriptions explicitly state what each does and, importantly, what each does NOT do (no bulk, comparisons, or rankings), eliminating boundary confusion.
Both names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (find_french_company, get_nogogo_grade), and the verb choice (find for lookup, get for retrieval) meaningfully reflects the difference in operation. No mixing of conventions.
Two tools is on the thin side per the general range, but this matches a deliberately narrow domain (name-to-SIREN lookup plus a single grade retrieval). There is no padding or redundancy, so each tool clearly earns its place.
The domain of looking up a French company's Nogogo grade is fully covered: you can resolve an identity via search and then fetch the graded record, with no dead ends. Deliberate exclusions (batch, ranking, comparison) are stated explicitly rather than left as hidden gaps.
Recherche une entreprise française par nom afin d'identifier son SIREN. Retourne au maximum 5 résultats avec uniquement le SIREN, le nom et la ville. Cette opération ne fournit aucune note Nogogo et ne prend pas en charge les listes, extractions massives, comparaisons ou classements d'entreprises.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Nom ou raison sociale d'une seule entreprise française. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: max 5 results, returned fields limited to SIREN/nom/ville, and no Nogogo grade. It doesn't discuss pagination or error behavior, but the return shape is stated when an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output scope, and exclusions. Front-loaded with the lookup goal, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-param lookup with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the definition is complete: it states target entity, result cap, returned fields, and unsupported use cases. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole query parameter is already documented (nom ou raison sociale d'une seule entreprise). The description restates the single-company constraint, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Declares a specific verb (rechercher) and resource (entreprise française), plus the goal (identifier son SIREN). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_nogogo_grade by stating it supplies no Nogogo grade.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies context and scope: lookup by name, capped at 5 results, and explicitly excludes listes, extractions massives, comparaisons, classements. This tells the agent when not to use it and points away from the sibling by denying the grade output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Consulte la note Nogogo d'une seule entreprise française à partir de son SIREN. La note Nogogo est une analyse indicative fondée sur des signaux publics ; elle ne constitue ni une notation officielle ou de crédit, ni une décision automatisée. Retourne uniquement le SIREN, le nom de l'entreprise, la note Nogogo si elle est disponible, le dirigeant principal, des informations administratives et légales sur l'entreprise et un lien vers Nogogo.fr. Cette opération ne prend pas en charge les comparaisons, classements, traitements par lot ou agrégations de plusieurs consultations Nogogo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siren | Yes | SIREN français unique composé exactement de 9 chiffres. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| siren | Yes | |
| activity | No | |
| ape_code | No | |
| situation | No | |
| legal_form | No | |
| nogogo_url | Yes | |
| head_office | No | |
| closure_date | No | |
| company_name | Yes | |
| creation_date | No | |
| last_updated_at | No | |
| not_rated_reason | No | |
| principal_director | No | |
| declared_share_capital | No | |
| share_capital_currency | No | |
| principal_director_role | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it qualifies the Nogogo grade as indicative, not an official/credit rating or automated decision, and explains the nature of the data source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The list of returned fields is somewhat verbose but justified given the output schema; the exclusion clause at the end is efficient. Slightly lengthy overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since an output schema exists, explaining return fields is optional but the description still summarizes them appropriately. The single vs multi-company boundary and the nature of the grade are well-covered; the only missing piece is guidance toward find_french_company for resolving a SIREN.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's format (exactly 9 digits) is fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that the input is a SIREN and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (consulte) and resource (note Nogogo) scoped to a single French company via SIREN. The explicit exclusion of comparisons, rankings, batch processing and aggregation clearly distinguishes it from any broader sibling usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the single-company scope explicit and rules out multi-company operations, which is clear usage guidance. It does not name the sibling find_french_company as an alternative for discovering a SIREN, leaving that routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_french_companyget_nogogo_gradeSearch French companies: financials, directors, ownership, M&A and insolvency events.
Vérification B2B française : SIRET, SIRENE, dirigeants RNE, santé d'entreprise. Hébergé en France.
French company data: financials, dirigeants, BODACC, INPI filings, PEP checks, alerts.
European business data — French company check, EU VAT validation, legal search.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
