SiteCheck Company Records

Australian Business Register, official register data: look

b2b_abr_australian_business_register

Read-only

Australian Business Register (ABN Lookup), official register data: look up a company by ABN or ACN for ABN status and date, entity name and type, ACN, GST registration date, business (trading) names and state/postcode; or search by company name for matching ABNs with name type, status, state, postcode and match score. Give one of abn, acn or name. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_rfs_russia_business_registry when you need Russia's official company and sole-trader register: search; b2b_census_business_builder when you need US Census County Business Patterns by state: number. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "b2b_abr_australian_business_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`abn`	No	11-digit ABN, spaces allowed, e.g. 51824753556
`acn`	No	9-digit ACN (company number), spaces allowed, e.g. 051775556
`name`	No	Company or business name to search, e.g. Telstra Corporation
`maxResults`	No	Name search only: 1 to 50 matches (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond that with genuinely non-schema behavior: the price ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and the fact that failed calls are not charged. The return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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 lookup capability is front-loaded before the alternative tools and pricing, and each sentence carries content. The sibling-routing clause is compressed into slightly awkward fragments ('search; ... : number') and consumes meaningful space for tools serving other countries, which is the main structural blemish.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; what remains — identifier choice, cost, payment and failure charging — is all stated. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: identifiers are mutually exclusive alternatives ('give one of abn, acn or name') rather than combinable filters. It also signals that name mode behaves differently from identifier mode by returning match scores, which is not visible from the property descriptions.

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 the specific verb and resource up front ('look up a company by ABN or ACN') and enumerates the exact return fields (ABN status/date, entity name/type, GST registration date, trading names, state/postcode). It also covers the second mode ('search by company name for matching ABNs ... match score'), so an agent can tell this apart from directory-style siblings.

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 line 'Give one of abn, acn or name' explicitly routes parameter/mode selection, and it names two siblings with the condition that selects them ('when you need Russia's official company and sole-trader register', 'when you need US Census County Business Patterns by state'). The gap is that the named alternatives are for entirely different countries rather than same-domain competitors, so there is no guidance on when a different Australian source (e.g. a trademark or other AU tool) should be preferred.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

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

Need Help?