Skip to main content
Glama

eu-verify

by io.github.contentfactory

check_insolvency_fr

Legal announcements from the French BODACC official gazette for one company, by SIREN (Luhn-validated). Query: ?siren=383474814 (required), famille=collective for insolvency proceedings (optional filter), limit=10 (1-20). Returns newest-first announcements with family, tribunal, judgment nature and date, and source URL; legal entities only (GDPR-safe). Zero announcements for a valid SIREN is a clean-record signal. Source: DILA open data, daily publications. Cached 1h. Price: $0.01 USDC per call (x402).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
sirenYes
familleNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: Luhn validation, optional filtering, result ordering (newest-first), returned fields (family, tribunal, judgment, date, URL), caching (1h), pricing ($0.01 USDC), data source (DILA open data), and GDPR safety (legal entities only). No contradictions.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and required parameter, then details options, output, and caveats in a logical order. No wasted words.

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 simple lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, behavior, output format, caching, pricing, and data source. It is fully complete for effective use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: siren (required, with example), famille (optional, default empty, purpose: insolvency filter), and limit (range 1-20, default 5). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 states the tool retrieves 'Legal announcements from the French BODACC official gazette for one company, by SIREN.' It specifies the verb ('check') via the name and resource (BODACC gazette), and the description explicitly mentions insolvency proceedings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup_company_fr.

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 provides clear usage context: a required SIREN with Luhn validation, optional filter 'famille=collective' for insolvency, and a limit parameter. It also notes that zero announcements for a valid SIREN is a clean-record signal. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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