Skip to main content
Glama

Italian Company Verification – Official Sources

Server Details

Verify Italian companies for KYB, supplier onboarding and procurement using official/public sources.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of an agent confusing it with another tool. The single tool's purpose is clearly stated and unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name `check_company` follows a clear verb_noun convention and is the only tool, so there is no internal inconsistency. The name accurately reflects the tool's action and target.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is borderline and feels thin for a server, even though the tool is comprehensive. The narrow purpose of Italian company verification partially justifies the small surface, but more granular tools could improve flexibility.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core verification workflow well: search by multiple identifiers, source timestamps, VAT verification, and normalized company data. Minor gaps exist for broader KYB needs such as sanctions/PEP screening or bulk/monitoring use cases, but these are workable around.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_companyCheck Italian companyA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Italian company registry lookup, verification and KYB pre-check using official/public sources: Registro Imprese / InfoCamere HVD, VIES, GLEIF, OpenCoesione and AGCM where applicable. Search by Codice Fiscale, Partita IVA or LEI. Returns normalized identity, status, legal form, address, NACE/ATECO, source timestamps and VAT verification. For supplier verification, procurement, due diligence and compliance. Available as the read-only MCP tool check_company over Streamable HTTP. Requires an x402 payment of 0.05 USDC on Base Mainnet per call.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesItalian company identifier: Codice Fiscale, Partita IVA (optionally prefixed with IT), or 20-character LEI.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: it aggregates official/public sources, returns normalized identity/legal/address/NACE-ATECO data, and requires an x402 payment of 0.05 USDC on Base Mainnet per call over Streamable HTTP. These cost, source, and transport details are exactly what an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations. No contradiction with readOnly, idempotent, or open-world hints.

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 packs purpose, sources, inputs, returns, use cases, transport, and pricing into six concise sentences, leading with the core function. It is longer than minimal but every sentence carries distinct information, and the payment/transport details are logically placed at the end.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers accepted identifier forms, source behavior, returned fields, intended use cases, transport, and cost. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect from the response. Error behavior is not described but is not essential given the read-only, open-world, idempotent semantics.

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% and the schema already fully explains the identifier parameter as Codice Fiscale, Partita IVA (optionally prefixed with IT), or 20-character LEI. The description repeats these options but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema does the heavy lifting.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Italian company registry lookup, verification and KYB pre-check' using named official sources. It enumerates accepted identifiers and output categories, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does. No sibling tools exist, so sibling differentiation is not needed.

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 states concrete use cases: supplier verification, procurement, due diligence, and compliance. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance because there are no sibling tools or obvious alternatives. For a singleton lookup tool, this is actionable context.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to access official European business data across 15 EU countries, including company lookups, VAT validation, sanctions screening, and KYB reports.
    11,502
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Exposes 29 official business-registry actors as MCP tools for KYC/AML, beneficial-owner (UBO), credit-risk and adverse-media workflows across 11 jurisdictions (EU, US, UAE). Sourced via Apify; pay-per-result.
    38
    6
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    eu-verify lets AI agents verify any European business partner: company existence (official French SIREN registry), insolvency records (BODACC), EU VAT validation before invoicing (VIES), SIRET/IBAN/LEI checks, address and email verification, French business-day deadlines and EU public tenders. 10 paid MCP tools + a free catalog tool, plus 81 HTTP endpoints. Each call costs $0.001-$0.01 in USDC on
    1
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources