HelpMyAgent

French director mandates

company_fr_director_mandates

Searches public French company director mandates by name. Name matching can include homonyms and does not prove identity. Use when: Searches public French company director mandates by name. Name matching can include homonyms and does not prove identity. Avoid when: Do not interpret inferred matches as official competitive relationships or identity proof. Limitations: Coverage depends on the listed public sources. Price: 0.010 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`last_name`	Yes
`first_names`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`limit`	Yes
`mandates`	Yes
`last_name`	Yes
`first_names`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`total_companies`	Yes
`returned_mandates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description says the tool 'Searches public French company director mandates', which implies a read-only operation, yet the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. The description does add caveats about homonyms and coverage, but the contradiction overrides that contribution.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and uses labeled sections, but the first sentence is repeated verbatim under 'Use when', which wastes a sentence. The limitations and price lines are useful, but the redundancy lowers the structural quality.

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 description includes price, source-coverage limitations, and important caveats about homonyms and identity proof, and an output schema exists so return values are covered structurally. However, missing alternative guidance and weak parameter semantics leave the overall context only minimally adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to supply parameter meaning beyond the schema. It only says searching 'by name' and mentions homonyms; it does not clarify that last_name is required, how first_names is used, or the pagination semantics of page and limit.

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 clearly states the operation: it searches public French company director mandates by name, and it adds the homonym caveat. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling company_fr_directors, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 simply repeats the main description verbatim and provides no conditions for selecting this tool. The 'Avoid when' section is really a warning about misinterpreting results, not guidance about choosing an alternative tool such as company_fr_verify or company_fr_directors.

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?