Skip to main content
Glama

eu-verify

by io.github.contentfactory

lookup_company_fr

Official French company registry search via recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr (INSEE Sirene data, updated daily). Query: ?q=airbus or ?q=383474814 (name or SIREN), optional per_page (1-10), page, code_postal, activite_principale (NAF, e.g. 70.10Z), etat_administratif (A active / C ceased). Returns SIREN, legal form, NAF, HQ address, employee range, status and published finances per company. Personal data on directors is stripped (GDPR). 24h cache. Price: $0.005 USDC per call (x402).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
per_pageNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses data source (INSEE Sirene), update frequency (daily), cache duration (24h), pricing, and GDPR compliance. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Dense but well-structured, front-loads purpose, then lists query format, optional parameters, returns, and additional info. No wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers query, parameters, output fields, cache, pricing, GDPR. No output schema, so description compensates well. Lacks error handling or pagination detail but still solid.

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 0%, but description adds meaning for q and per_page. However, introduces extra parameters (page, code_postal, etc.) not in schema, which may confuse agents relying on schema.

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?

Clearly states it is an official French company registry search via a specific API, with query by name or SIREN. Distinct from siblings which target other countries or business functions.

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?

Context is clear for French company lookups, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like lookup_company_uk or others.

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