HelpMyAgent

French Company Directors

company_fr_directors

Returns publicly listed directors and legal representatives of a French company from a SIREN or SIRET. Use when: You need the publicly listed directors or legal representatives of a French company. You need normalized names, roles and available public identity fields for company leadership. Avoid when: You need beneficial owners or shareholder ownership information; this endpoint does not provide an ownership register. You need personal contact details or non-public information about directors. Limitations: Only directors and representatives exposed by the public company source are returned. Some person or role fields can be missing or incomplete in the source. Price: 0.005 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes	9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`directors`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`identifier_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses source limitations, the possibility of missing or incomplete person/role fields, and the per-call price. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is not contradicted by the description, though the 'Returns' language implies a query operation; the description still refrains from promising no side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into clear sections for usage, limitations, and pricing. Every sentence adds actionable information and there is no redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and existing annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, limitations, and cost. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect without needing additional clarification.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, including a pattern explanation of 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET. The description adds only a slight contextual reminder that the input is a French company identifier, which already exists in the schema. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Returns publicly listed directors and legal representatives of a French company from a SIREN or SIRET.' This clearly identifies the resource, the type of data returned, and the required input. It also differentiates from ownership-related siblings by explicitly stating that beneficial owners and ownership registers are not covered.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' conditions, including concrete negative cases such as needing beneficial owners, shareholder ownership information, or personal contact details. This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling tools.

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?