HelpMyAgent

French Company Events

company_fr_events

Returns the latest normalized public BODACC events for a French company from a SIREN or SIRET. Use when: You need recent normalized BODACC events for a French company, such as filings, modifications, collective proceedings or deregistrations. You need an event timeline filtered from an optional publication date. Avoid when: You need an interpreted legal-risk level rather than raw normalized events; use company/fr/risk. You only need current administrative profile fields; use company/fr/profile. Limitations: The result reflects BODACC records available through the public dataset and the requested limit/date filter. Normalized events are factual source records and do not constitute legal advice or a risk score. Price: 0.010 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of normalized BODACC events to return
`since`	No	Minimum included BODACC publication date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`identifier`	Yes	9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`latest_event`	Yes
`returned_count`	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 meaningful context beyond the annotations by stating that results reflect public BODACC dataset availability, that events are factual source records, and that they do not constitute legal advice or a risk score. This is useful for an agent deciding how to frame results. readOnlyHint=false is not contradicted, but the description doesn't elaborate on potential side effects or cost implications beyond the price line.

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?

Front-loaded with a precise one-sentence purpose, then compact use/avoid/limitations/price sections. Every section earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly scan for decision-relevant information.

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?

Given the full input schema, output schema, clear usage guidance, explicit sibling alternatives, limitations, and pricing, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description only lightly reinforces the 'since' parameter as an optional publication-date filter and references limit/date filters generically; it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the latest normalized public BODACC events for a French company from a SIREN or SIRET.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming company/fr/risk and company/fr/profile as alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections. It tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool (recent normalized BODACC events, optional event timeline) and when not to (risk interpretation, administrative profile), naming the exact sibling tools to use instead.

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?