Skip to main content
Glama

eu-verify

by io.github.contentfactory

check_eori

Live EORI (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) validation via the European Commission EOS/DDS2 service -- the number every business needs to clear customs in the EU. Query: ?eori=FR38347481400100 (2-letter country + up to 15 alphanumerics). Returns valid true/false plus registered name and address when the operator consented to publication. SOAP upstream, clean JSON out; 24h cache. Price: $0.003 USDC per call (x402).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eoriYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the upstream SOAP protocol, 24-hour cache, return fields (valid, name, address with consent), and pricing ($0.003 per call). This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single paragraph with every sentence adding value: purpose, format, return data, caching, and pricing. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant information.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: live service, data source, response details, caching, and cost. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by detailing the parameter format: 2-letter country code plus up to 15 alphanumerics, including an example query. This provides essential semantics beyond the schema's type definition.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a live EORI validation service via the European Commission, specifying the resource (EORI numbers) and the action (validation for customs clearance). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being specifically for EORI, not VAT, SIRET, or other identifiers.

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 when to use the tool: for EORI validation needed for EU customs. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools provide different validation types, and the context implies this is the only tool for EORI. Clear guidance is present but without explicit when-not-to-use.

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

All eu-verify toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct verification or lookup purpose (e.g., company lookup, sanctions screening, address geocoding, IBAN validation) with no overlap. Even tools targeting the same source (e.g., check_eori vs. validate_vat_eu) have clearly different inputs and outputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (verify, validate, lookup, check, find, screen) with clear nouns. The only exception is 'catalog' (a noun-only name), but it's a minor deviation that doesn't cause confusion.

Tool Count5/5

19 tools is appropriate for a data verification service covering company data, sanctions, VAT, addresses, emails, IBANs, and financials. Each tool addresses a specific need without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of EU company verification: existence, status, financials, ownership, VAT, sanctions, EORI, invoices, tenders, and address validation. No obvious gaps for its stated domain.

Resources