ENTIA Entity Verification

Get Full Dossier

get_full_dossier

Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID (requires INTEGRATE plan or higher, from €399/month). Use for due diligence / KYB when the user wants everything about one company in a single call (identity, BORME, VIES, zone). Aggregator — 90+ fields about an entity in one call. Combines 4 ENTIA sources in parallel: identity, zone, BORME, VIES. Killer tool for due diligence/KYB.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Company name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, or LEI

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_meta`	No
`found`	No
`query`	No
`entity`	No
`integrity`	No
`provenance`	No
`trust_score`	No
`verification`	No
`data_coverage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / integrity
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / legal_framework
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / provenance
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / signature
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Aggregated dossier: identity, registry, trust and verification in one call.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data_coverage": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "entity": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "legal_framework": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signature": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "trust_score": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "verification": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedMay 30, 2026
RemovedMay 26, 2026
AddedMay 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for the extra operational context it adds: a paid plan gate (INTEGRATE, €399/month) and the fact that four upstream sources are queried in parallel. It doesn't discuss latency cost or partial-failure behavior of that fan-out, which would have pushed it higher.

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?

Front-loaded with the pricing gate and the primary use case, which is the right order. However, "Aggregator — 90+ fields" restates the earlier "everything about one company," and the closing "Killer tool for due diligence/KYB" repeats the use case already stated, adding mild 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the plan requirement plus source composition cover the key decision inputs. Missing are practical notes on call cost/latency given the four parallel lookups, which matters for an agent choosing between this and cheaper siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an enumeration of accepted identifier types (name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, LEI) already in the schema. The description adds no format hints, normalization rules, or disambiguation guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: aggregates 90+ fields about one company from four named ENTIA sources (identity, zone, BORME, VIES) in a single call. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as entity_lookup, verify_vat, or zone_profile, which an agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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?

"Use for due diligence / KYB when the user wants everything about one company in a single call" gives a clear selection condition that implicitly steers away from single-source siblings. It does not name those alternatives explicitly or state when not to use the expensive aggregate, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 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.