Italian Company Verification – Official Sources
Server Details
Verify Italian companies for KYB, supplier onboarding and procurement using official/public sources.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
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.
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.
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.
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 toolcheck_companyCheck Italian companyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Italian company identifier: Codice Fiscale, Partita IVA (optionally prefixed with IT), or 20-character LEI. |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Verify Israeli companies using structured public-registry evidence for suppliers and due diligence.
Company, KYB, VAT, sanctions, LEI and address data for 15 EU countries.
Live data from 27 official national company registries. Unmodified. For KYB and due diligence.
Verify a company on official registries (GLEIF LEI, SEC EDGAR), screen sanctions. Free.
11
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceStructured business intelligence for AI agents. 5.5M verified entities across 34 countries, 40.3M BORME mercantile acts, EU VAT validation, GLEIF, healthcare registries. 20 tools.61MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to access official European business data across 15 EU countries, including company lookups, VAT validation, sanctions screening, and KYB reports.11,5021MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceExposes 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.386MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceeu-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 on1MIT