Skip to main content
Glama

UpGrowth: business data for Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco

by io.github.Z4KARY
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List company legal forms and State fees

creation_legal_forms
Read-only

List the main legal forms to create a company in Algeria: SARL, EURL, SPA, SPAS and SPASU (the simplified joint-stock company of loi 22-09, reserved to companies certified start-up), SNC, sole trader and auto-entrepreneur. Other forms of the commercial code (sociétés en commandite, groupement, société en participation) are not in this list, so never say a form does not exist because it is missing here: check search_jo_text. For each form it gives the number of partners allowed, the minimum capital and the official State fees of each creation step (trade register, legal announcements and so on) for 2026, with the total of the published fees. A step whose price no official text fixes, such as the notary or the bank, is flagged as not priced instead of guessed. It lists State fees only, never the fees of a service provider, so it is not a quote for a creation. For Tunisia (country TN) it lists the legal forms of the commercial companies code (SARL, SUARL, SA, SNC, SCS) and the sole trader, with the partners allowed, the minimum capital, the liability and the registration steps at the National Register of Enterprises, each with its official fee in Tunisian dinars, its documents and its delay. For Morocco (country MA) it lists the SARL, the single-member SARL (SARL AU), the SA, the SAS, the SNC and the SCS, the sole trader and the auto-entrepreneur status, with the partners allowed, the minimum capital, the liability and the creation steps (negative certificate of OMPIC, statutes, registration of the deeds, professional tax and tax identification, trade register, CNSS affiliation, publication in the official gazette), each with its official fee in Moroccan dirhams when an official page states one. Tunisia and Morocco need an API key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the labels, notes and attribution text in the answer: fr (French, the default), ar (Arabic) or en (English).fr
countryNoCountry of the data, an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code in any letter case: DZ for Algeria, the default, TN for Tunisia or MA for Morocco. Only live countries answer: list_countries shows them and their datasets. Any other country, or a dataset the country does not have (for example the activity nomenclature for Morocco), returns country_not_available. Without an API key only DZ answers: TN and MA return key_required.DZ

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / country / description
      Previous value: -"Country of the data, an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code in any letter case: DZ for Algeria, the default, TN for Tunisia or MA for Morocco. Only live countries answer: list_countries shows them and their datasets. Any other country, or a dataset the country does not have, returns country_not_available."New value: +"Country of the data, an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code in any letter case: DZ for Algeria, the default, TN for Tunisia or MA for Morocco. Only live countries answer: list_countries shows them and their datasets. Any other country, or a dataset the country does not have (for example the activity nomenclature for Morocco), returns country_not_available. Without an API key only DZ answers: TN and MA return key_required."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: fees are State fees only and not a quote, unpriced steps are flagged rather than guessed, and Tunisia/Morocco require an API key. This is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs to avoid misrepresenting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is very long and enumerates every form and every registration step for three countries, which is more inventory than an agent needs to select and call the tool. The State-fees-only constraint is restated, adding redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining what is returned: per-country form lists, partners, capital, and per-step official fees with currency. It also covers multi-country scoping and API-key prerequisites, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents lang and country semantics, including the country_not_available and key_required outcomes. The description reinforces the country behavior but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists legal forms to create a company) and enumerates the exact content returned: partners allowed, minimum capital, and official State fees per creation step. It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_jo_text by naming the boundary of its own coverage.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: 'never say a form does not exist because it is missing here: check search_jo_text,' and explains that only DZ answers without an API key while TN/MA return key_required. It lacks an explicit 'use this when you need X vs Y' framing beyond the one alternative and the auth precondition.

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

All UpGrowth: business data for Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco 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