Skip to main content
Glama

find-missing

by io.github.NKO-STUDIO
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Checks if an LEI-holding entity has a match in the national registry its jurisdiction expects.

Ownership verified
Status
Healthy
Uptime
100.0% over 22 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL
Repository
NKO-LLC-TECH/nko
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
NKO — Entity Registry Check

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation4/5

award_state and find_missing are functionally distinct: one takes a TED award notice and resolves the winner's current registry status, while the other takes an LEI/company identifier and checks for a registry match. However, both revolve around commercial-registry existence/status, and the name 'award_state' could be misread as tender status rather than company status.

Naming Consistency2/5

Both names use snake_case, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: 'award_state' is a noun-noun phrase while 'find_missing' is a verb phrase. The names also do not clearly signal their actual operations, making the convention feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is borderline for a server, but it is defensible for a very narrow due-diligence/registry-check purpose. The set is not padded, but it feels thin compared to the breadth of registry and procurement scenarios it touches.

Completeness3/5

The two tools cover complementary registry checks, but there are notable gaps: there is no way to query a company's current status directly by identifier, no notice-discovery operations, and explicit coverage gaps for UK and Hungary. Core workflows are possible, but some users will hit dead ends.

Available Tools

2 tools
award_stateAInspect

Given a real, awarded EU public-procurement notice (TED), resolve the winning company's real commercial-registry status TODAY (active, dissolved, insolvency, etc.) - answers "is the company that won this public contract still alive?".

Args:
    notice_id: the TED publication-number of an AWARD notice (e.g.
        "15-2026") - must be a can-standard/can-social/can-desw/
        can-defence notice with a chosen winner, not the original
        contract notice (cn-standard).
    api_key: optional - a free key obtained from POST
        https://api.nkodatalabs.com/v0/keys. Without one, this call
        still works within a free anonymous trial (5 calls/day per
        caller IP) - see the response's "trial" field.

Coverage today (published honestly, not hidden): Spain and France
resolve live via each country's own commercial registry. UK and
Hungary are not resolvable yet - UK needs a free Companies House API
key not yet configured on this service, Hungary has no free public
registry API at all. Natural-person awardees are excluded, never
resolved as a company.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
notice_idYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally well. It honestly discloses coverage limitations (Spain and France only, UK and Hungary unresolvable), anonymous-trial rate limits, auth requirements, and the exclusion of natural persons. It even flags that coverage is published honestly rather than hidden.

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 appropriately structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains arguments, then coverage limitations. Every section adds necessary information and no sentence is wasted. It is long but only because the tool genuinely has several non-obvious constraints.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a niche domain, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input format, auth, trial limits, country support, known gaps, and excluded cases, and it indicates the kind of result (active, dissolved, insolvency, etc.) without needing a full return schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does. notice_id is defined with an example, the required notice type, and exclusions; api_key is explained with where to get it and the fallback anonymous behavior. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: given an awarded EU TED notice, resolve the winning company's current commercial-registry status. It is specific about the verb, resource, and the core question it answers, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool find_missing.

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 gives clear usage boundaries: the input must be an AWARD notice, not the original contract notice, and natural-person awardees are excluded. It also explains which countries are currently supported. However, it never explicitly mentions when to choose this tool over find_missing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

find_missingAInspect

Query whether an entity with a real LEI has a high-confidence match in the national commercial registry its declared jurisdiction would expect.

Args:
    identifier_type: one of "lei", "company_number", "name".
    identifier: the LEI, registration number, or legal name to look up.
    api_key: optional - a free key obtained from POST
        https://api.nkodatalabs.com/v0/keys. Without one, this call
        still works within a free anonymous trial (5 calls/day per
        caller IP) - see the response's "trial" field.
    jurisdiction: optional ISO-3166 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "GB", "ES", "FR").
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
identifierYes
jurisdictionNo
identifier_typeYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose rate-limit behavior (5 calls/day trial), that an api_key can be obtained via POST, and a response field ('trial'). However, it does not state side effects (though 'query' implies read-only), error/edge-case behavior, or response format beyond the trial field. It adds useful behavior but is not comprehensive.

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 economical: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. No redundant content. The purpose sentence is slightly awkward and could be rephrased more directly, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Input semantics are fully covered, and the purpose sentence implies the core result (whether a high-confidence match exists). However, with no output schema, the description does not describe the response shape or how to interpret match results beyond the trial field, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args list is the only documentation. It clearly explains all four parameters: identifier_type with allowed values, identifier with definition, api_key with acquisition and trial behavior, and jurisdiction with ISO-3166 format and examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action – query whether an entity has a high-confidence registry match – identifying the resource (national commercial registry) and a unique purpose. The phrasing 'real LEI' and 'its declared jurisdiction would expect' is slightly convoluted, but the intent is clear; there are no siblings to differentiate from.

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 establishes a clear context for use (checking registry match completeness) and provides operational guidance about the optional api_key and trial limits, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With no sibling tools, a moderate score is appropriate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Addedaward_state
  2. 1 tool update
    • Changedfind_missing4 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / api_key / anyOf
        Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
      • addedInput schema / properties / api_key / default
        Added value: +null
      • removedInput schema / properties / api_key / type
        Removed value: -"string"
      • changedInput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "identifier_type",
-  "identifier",
-  "api_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "identifier_type",
+  "identifier"
+]
  3. 1 tool update
    • First observedfind_missing

Publisher details

Operator
NKO Data Labs · Publisher source
Operator website
https://nkodatalabs.com · Publisher source
Vendor relationship
First-party · Publisher source
Documentation
https://github.com/NKO-LLC-TECH/nko-find-missing-mcp · Publisher source
Trust center
Not available
Restrictions
NKO Data Labs · Publisher source

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-gleif

    pipeworx-io
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides access to Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) data from GLEIF, enabling queries about legal entities and their identifiers via natural language.
    8 npm
    MIT

  • gleif-mcp-server

    olgasafonova
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP server for GLEIF LEI (Legal Entity Identifier) database access. Look up, validate, and search legal entities and their relationships in the global LEI system.
    12
    6
    MIT

  • leie

    pipeworx-io
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables checking whether a healthcare provider is barred from US federal health programs by screening against the HHS OIG List of Excluded Individuals/Entities, returning candidate matches with confidence levels and coverage details.
    MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources