Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

check_ch_company

Official Swiss company check from the Zefix register (Central Business Name Index, federal). Look up by UID (exact, e.g. CHE-105.909.036) or search by name (up to 5 candidates). Returns official name with translations, legal form, register status (active / in liquidation / deleted) with deletion date, legal seat, purpose, address and last SHAB publication date, with a direct link to the cantonal register excerpt. Companies only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidNoSwiss UID (exact), e.g. CHE-105.909.036; provide this or 'name'
nameNoCompany name to search (up to 5 candidates)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return data (name, legal form, status, etc.) and search behavior (exact UID or name with max 5 candidates). It lacks mentions of rate limits or authentication, but is otherwise thorough.

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?

The description is a single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and lookup methods, followed by a clear list of returned data. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool without output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and constraints ('Companies only'). It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete for a lookup tool.

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 explains the parameters. The description adds minor context (UID exact, name up to 5 candidates), not significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is for Swiss company checks from the Zefix register, specifying two lookup methods (UID or name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_cz_company by targeting Switzerland.

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 implies usage for Swiss companies and excludes non-companies ('Companies only'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, though sibling tools provide that context.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources