Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

check_uk_company

Official UK company check from the Companies House register. Look up by company number (exact) or search by name (up to 5 candidates). Returns official name, status (active/dissolved/liquidation), type, incorporation and cessation dates, registered office, SIC codes, and the register's insolvency-history and charges flags, with a direct Companies House link. Companies only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCompany name to search (up to 5 candidates)
company_numberNoUK company number (exact), e.g. 08804411; provide this or 'name'

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'official' and lists return fields, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., what if company not found), or that it is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool relying on an external register.

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?

The description is concise at around 70 words across two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates returned data. While the list of fields is somewhat lengthy, it remains readable without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON), error states, or pagination (none expected). For a tool in a suite of similar country checks, the completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that company_number must be exact and name returns up to 5 candidates. This contextual guidance improves parameter usage beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool's purpose: official UK company check from Companies House. It specifies exact lookup by number or name search, and lists all returned data fields. The scope ('Companies only') and the variety of sibling country-specific tools make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates use for UK companies by naming the register and listing typical UK company attributes. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs others (e.g., for other jurisdictions), but the sibling tool names (e.g., check_fr_company) provide strong contextual cues. Clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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