Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

screen_eu_supplier

European supplier screening — one call, an honest per-country coverage matrix. Routes by country (NL, FR, UK, NO, CH, CZ, FI, PL) to the best available official open sources: register profile, insolvency signal (full register search, register flags, or not covered), VAT validation (VIES or the Polish whitelist), EU + UN sanctions screening and normalised name verification. Every response states per dimension what was and was not covered. Factual only — no scores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesLegal/company name (used for sanctions screening and name verification)
countryYesCountry of the supplier; coverage differs per country and is reported in the response
vat_numberNoOptional EU VAT number for VIES validation (NL/FR/CZ/FI only; PL is covered via the whitelist)
registration_numberYesNational register number: KVK (NL), SIREN (FR), company number (UK), orgnr (NO), UID (CH), ICO (CZ), Business ID (FI), NIP (PL)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('factual only – no scores'), explains response structure ('states per dimension what was and was not covered'), and lists data sources. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the core transparency is strong.

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 slightly verbose but well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, then details routing and coverage. Every sentence provides essential information with no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the response contains (per-dimension coverage matrix). It covers all parameters and country-specific details. Minor missing details: no mention of error handling or unlisted countries, but overall complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining how each parameter is used (e.g., name for sanctions, country for routing), listing country-specific registration number formats (KVK, SIREN, etc.), and detailing VAT coverage. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 performs European supplier screening, combining multiple official sources per country. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., check_* single-country tools, screen_eu_sanctions) by offering a comprehensive multi-dimension screening in one call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for comprehensive screening of suppliers in listed countries, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for unlisted countries or single-dimension checks) or recommend alternatives among siblings. Usage context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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