HelpMyAgent

Probable French company competitors

company_fr_competitors

Finds probable competitors from shared SIRENE activity, size and geography criteria. The relationship is inferred, not official. Use when: Finds probable competitors from shared SIRENE activity, size and geography criteria. The relationship is inferred, not official. Avoid when: Do not use this endpoint as a legal, regulated credit or guaranteed fraud-free decision unless explicitly stated otherwise. Limitations: Coverage depends on the public sources listed for this endpoint. Price: 0.020 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`scope`	No	department
`identifier`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`criteria`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`competitors`	Yes
`limitations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the result is inferred and not official, coverage depends on public sources, and there is a per-call price. These are valuable caveats about reliability and cost. It does not elaborate on side effects, but neither the description nor the annotations suggest destructive behavior, and there is no contradiction.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is structured with headings and includes useful price information, but the 'Use when' block repeats the opening two sentences verbatim. This redundancy is not offset by additional content, making the description less concise than it appears.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema supplies defaults, an enum, and an identifier pattern, and the output schema exists, so basic invocation is possible. The description adds limitations and pricing. However, it fails to clarify parameter semantics and does not route the agent among the numerous sibling company_fr_* tools, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It alludes to SIRENE and geography criteria, which hints at identifier and scope, but it never states what identifier refers to, what scope values mean, or how limit behaves. With no schema parameter descriptions, this is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and object ('Finds probable competitors') and identifies the concrete criteria: shared SIRENE activity, size, and geography. It also adds the key qualifier that the relationship is inferred, not official. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like company_fr_peers or company_fr_public_contract_competitors, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use when' section is a verbatim repeat of the opening description, so it provides no additional scenario guidance. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, and the 'Avoid when' clause is a legal/credit disclaimer rather than a tool-selection condition. An agent only gets the implied use case of finding probable competitors.

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

All HelpMyAgent tools Inspect

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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most endpoints target distinct resources, but several clusters are easy to confuse: company_fr_intelligence vs company_fr_kyb, company_fr_peers vs company_fr_competitors vs company_fr_public_contract_competitors, and company_fr_risk vs company_fr_default_score vs company_fr_payment_context. The descriptive names help, but the repetitive 'Use when' sections often restate the description rather than contrasting with nearby tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is domain_fr_feature with consistent snake_case, e.g., company_fr_profile, company_fr_financials, company_fr_public_contracts, procurement_fr_search, which makes the family predictable. The three meta tools (describe_api, list_categories, search_apis) switch to a bare verb_noun style, and a few company_fr names use verbs while most use nouns, creating a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate, especially because aggregators like company_fr_intelligence and company_fr_kyb overlap with many single-purpose endpoints. The broad French-company data domain justifies a large number of endpoints, but several could be consolidated or split out to make the server more focused.

Completeness4/5

The set covers discovery, verification, profile, directors, financials, legal risk, compliance, public contracts, procurement, funding, benchmarking, signals, and aggregation, so core French-company workflows have no major dead ends. Minor gaps remain around beneficial-ownership/shareholder data and subscription-style monitoring, but those are explicitly outside the stated scope of most endpoints.

Resources

Need Help?