HelpMyAgent

French Company Intelligence

company_fr_intelligence

Aggregates selected existing French company intelligence services into a single call, with selectable sections and tolerance for temporarily unavailable sources. Use when: You need several existing French Company intelligence sections in one agent-ready call. You want to select a combination of profile, directors, financials, events, risk, certifications, public contracts, compliance, aids, signals or opportunities. Avoid when: You need only one narrow datum and want the smallest, most specific response; call the dedicated endpoint directly. You require every requested section to be available; this aggregator is designed to tolerate temporarily unavailable sources and report partial coverage. Limitations: This is an aggregator of existing HelpMyAgent Company services and does not create an independent data source or additional factual coverage. Requested sections can be reported unavailable when an underlying public source or service is temporarily unavailable. Price: 0.050 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include`	No	Optional list of existing Company sections to aggregate in the response
`identifier`	Yes	9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`sections`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`identifier_type`	Yes
`sections_available`	Yes
`sections_requested`	Yes
`sections_unavailable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing tolerance for temporarily unavailable sources, reported partial coverage, the fact that it aggregates existing services rather than creating new data, and a concrete price. These are important behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 structured with clear headings (Use when, Avoid when, Limitations, Price) and every sentence contributes essential operational information. It is detailed without redundancy.

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 tool's aggregator complexity, two parameters, many sibling alternatives, and an output schema, the description covers selection criteria, exclusions, failure tolerance, limitations, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the included sections correspond to existing Company intelligence services and that availability of sections is not guaranteed, which directly informs how an agent should interpret the 'include' parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Aggregates') and a concrete resource ('existing French company intelligence services into a single call'). It clearly differentiates this aggregator from the dedicated sibling tools by emphasizing selectable sections and tolerance for unavailable sources.

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' guidance, including when to call dedicated endpoints directly and when the aggregator's partial-coverage behavior is unacceptable. This gives an agent clear selection criteria versus its many siblings.

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?