Skip to main content
Glama

ENTIA Entity Verification

by io.github.entia-systems-core

Get Competitors

get_competitors
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find real competitors in the same sector and city. Ranked entities with identity + location + sector matching. Spain only on the public surface. sector is a closed vocabulary — see the enum; aliases such as abogados (the slug ENTIA uses in its own Entia Home URLs) resolve to their canonical slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesCity name in Spain (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao)
limitNoMax results (1-30)
sectorYesENTIA sector slug. Canonical: dental, legal, estetica, psicologia, medicos, talleres, veterinarios, reformas, inmobiliarias, asesorias, gimnasios… Aliases (abogados, salud, dentist, beautysalon…) resolve to a canonical slug and the response declares the translation in _meta.sector_resolved_from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo
_metaNoCarries sector_resolved_from / sector_resolved_to
countNo
sectorNoCanonical slug actually used after alias resolution
countryNo
competitorsNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: geographic restriction to Spain, public surface only, ranked results, and alias resolution behavior documented in _meta.sector_resolved_from. 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 two sentences plus a concise note on sector behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given that the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains geographic scope and ranking, though it does not mention pagination or result limits beyond the schema's max. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for a tool with good structured metadata.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining that sector is a closed vocabulary with aliases that resolve to canonical slugs, and provides example city names. The param info is useful for correct usage.

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 purpose: find competitors based on sector and city in Spain. It uses specific verbs ('Find') and resources ('competitors') with key filters. The scope is well-defined and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_entities.

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 context: Spain-only, public surface, and notes that sector is a closed vocabulary with alias resolution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool nor contrast with alternatives like search_entities or entity_lookup, leaving some implicit guidance.

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

All ENTIA Entity Verification 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but get_entia_home and get_entity_home_projection are near-duplicates representing the same Entia Home concept from slightly different technical angles. entity_lookup and get_full_dossier also overlap since entity_lookup already mentions returning the full paid dossier, and get_competitors is a specialized variant of search_entities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes get_* names with bare action names like entity_lookup, search_entities, verify_vat, and professional_lookup, so there is no single consistent verb_noun pattern. The names are still readable and somewhat predictable, but the inconsistency is noticeable and get_entia_home vs get_entity_home_projection adds confusion.

Tool Count4/5

Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for an entity-verification server, and most tools serve a distinct due-diligence purpose. However, a few tools are auxiliary or redundant: get_showcase and get_platform_stats are exploratory rather than core verification, and the two Entia Home retrieval tools could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core verification lifecycle well: entity lookup by identifiers, flexible search, VAT validation, professional verification, competitor discovery, full dossiers, and risk auditing. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to fetch a raw single source like VIES or BORME independently and no entity relationship/ownership endpoint, but these are workable for typical KYB workflows.

Resources