Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agent Data Tools: Company and VAT check

by io.github.Nutshell2000
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Norwegian company lookup, Brønnøysund register

no_company
Read-only

Norwegian company by organisasjonsnummer (923609016 or NO923609016MVA) or name, live from Brønnøysundregistrene: name, former names, legal form, status, bankruptcy, liquidation or reconstruction, registration and founding dates, VAT and business-register status, employees, industry codes, purpose, address, website. Use to verify a Norwegian customer or supplier. Register facts only, not a credit report. Example: orgnr=923609016. Price $0.01/call via x402 USDC or a card key (/credits), first 25 free; failed calls free. Reads or computes only and changes nothing; each call is charged, so repeats are not free.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "no_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoWith name: only companies whose address is in this city (poststed)
nameNoCompany name to search for, instead of orgnr: up to 10 companies whose name holds every word
limitNoMatches for a name search (1-10, default 5)
orgnrNoNorwegian organisasjonsnummer (9 digits) or VAT number NO…MVA (give orgnr or name)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), and the description adds information the annotations cannot: the cost model ($0.01/call via x402 USDC or a card key, first 25 free, failed calls free) and the consequence that repeats are not free. That last point also explains the idempotentHint=false annotation, so the agent understands why re-calling is discouraged rather than deduplicated.

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?

Purpose and input formats are front-loaded, and the long field inventory is compressed into a single comma-delimited list rather than meandering prose. The pricing sentence at the end is dense but each clause carries real information (price, payment rails, free tier, failed-call policy, repeat cost), so little is wasted, though the block is long for a four-parameter lookup.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. Input formats, cost, and the read-only nature are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both orgnr and name (plus city and limit) are already documented in the schema, including the 9-digit and NO…MVA formats. The description only restates those formats and adds a single concrete example (orgnr=923609016), which is marginal added meaning over 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Norwegian company by organisasjonsnummer ... or name') and names the data source, Brønnøysundregistrene. It enumerates exactly what comes back (name, legal form, bankruptcy/liquidation status, VAT status, industry codes, address) and explicitly bounds the scope with 'Register facts only, not a credit report', which separates it from a credit-report style tool.

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?

'Use to verify a Norwegian customer or supplier' supplies a concrete usage context, and 'Register facts only, not a credit report' is an explicit when-not boundary. What's missing is any routing hint toward sibling lookup tools for other jurisdictions or for credit/enrichment purposes; the guidance is clear but stops short of naming alternatives.

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

All Agent Data Tools: Company and VAT check toolsInspect
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