agentdata-nl

verify_eu_vat

EU VAT number validation (VIES) with predictable behavior for agents. Validates any EU VAT number against the European Commission's VIES service. Two modes: fast validation (may serve a cached result, labeled with its timestamp) and consultation-proof mode (always live, returns the official consultation number, requires requester identification). 'Not confirmed' does not imply the company is invalid. Machine-readable errors with per-member-state availability status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		fast
`vat_number`	Yes	Country code + national VAT number, e.g. NL123456789B01
`requester_vat_number`	No	Required in consultation_proof mode

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses caching behavior, mode differences, requirements for consultation_proof, and caveats like 'not confirmed' not meaning invalid. Also mentions machine-readable errors and per-member-state availability. Without annotations, this provides thorough behavioral insight.

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?

Five sentences cover purpose, modes, caveats, and errors. Front-loaded with key information. Efficient but not overly concise.

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?

Covers main behaviors and parameters. No output schema, but return values are partially described (timestamps, consultation number, machine-readable errors). Adequate for a validation tool.

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 descriptions for vat_number and requester_vat_number provide examples and constraints. Mode parameter missing schema description but explained in tool description. Overall adds meaning 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 the tool's function: EU VAT number validation against VIES. It specifies verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that check company registrations or sanctions.

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?

Describes two modes and when to use each (fast for cached result, consultation_proof for live verification). Does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the purpose is self-evident.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

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

Need Help?