gapup-mcp

corporate_registry_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve legal information about a company from its national corporate registry. Returns a normalised, sourced company profile: legal status, registration number, directors, shareholders, recent filings, registered address, share capital, and a quality score (0–100). Coverage: France (INPI, keyless — full SIREN/SIRET with directors), 3M+ entities worldwide via GLEIF LEI (keyless, large companies), UK (Companies House, optional key), Netherlands (KvK, optional key), and OpenCorporates (token required since 2026). Sources are tried in cascade; quality_score increases with each source that succeeds. When to use: due-diligence, KYC screening, supplier verification, M&A research, or any workflow needing verified company identity and legal status. Optional env vars: COMPANIES_HOUSE_API_KEY (UK), KVK_API_KEY (NL), OPENCORPORATES_API_TOKEN (OpenCorporates token).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. 'FR', 'GB', 'NL', 'DE', 'SG', 'AU', 'US'). If omitted, inferred from legal suffix in company name, then falls back to global search.
`identifier`	No	Optional registry identifier for a fast direct lookup: SIREN (FR, 9 digits), Companies House number (GB, 8 chars), KvK number (NL, 8 digits), etc.
`company_name`	Yes	Company name or trading name to look up (e.g. 'Sanofi', 'Tesco PLC', 'Notion Labs Inc')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`registry`	Yes
`directors`	Yes
`freshness`	Yes	ISO timestamp
`identifier`	Yes
`legal_form`	No
`legal_name`	No
`company_name`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	Yes
`shareholders`	Yes
`quality_score`	Yes	0-100 confidence score
`share_capital`	No
`filings_recent`	Yes
`incorporation_date`	No
`registered_address`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds cascade logic, quality score increase, async behavior, and source-specific requirements. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured: purpose, coverage, use cases, env vars. Slightly long but no wasted sentences. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given complexity (4 params, many sources, output schema exists), description covers purpose, when-to-use, behavioral details, and parameter nuances. Output schema handles return values, so no gap.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context: async usage, country inference, and identifier for direct lookup, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states it resolves legal information from national corporate registries, lists the returned fields, and covers multiple sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on registry lookups for due diligence and KYC.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (due-diligence, KYC, etc.) and mentions optional API keys. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the targeted applications are well defined.

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

All gapup-mcp 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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?