HelpMyAgent

French Company Opportunities

company_fr_opportunities

Ranks actionable French public funding and open procurement opportunities for a company using its profile, project context and historical public contracts. Use when: You need company-specific actionable opportunities combining public aid matching and currently open public tenders. You want opportunities ranked from the company profile, optional project context and historical public-contract evidence. Avoid when: You need a broad open-tender search without company context; use procurement/fr/search. You need a guarantee of aid eligibility, tender suitability or commercial success. Limitations: PUBLIC_AID opportunities are produced only when a project is provided and matches the public taxonomy; they remain indicative, not official eligibility decisions. PUBLIC_TENDER matching is intentionally conservative and relies on common CPV codes plus shared business vocabulary with historical awarded contracts; source coverage can be partial. Price: 0.020 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of ranked opportunities to return
`project`	No	Optional project context used for public-aid and opportunity matching
`identifier`	Yes	9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`opportunities`	Yes
`company_status`	Yes
`returned_count`	Yes
`identifier_type`	Yes
`total_candidates`	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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral constraints: PUBLIC_AID is only produced when a project is provided, tender matching is conservative and relies on CPV codes plus vocabulary, and source coverage may be partial. It also states that aid results are indicative, not official eligibility decisions.

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 into purpose, use-when, avoid-when, limitations, and price, with the main function front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful selection or invocation information 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?

For a ranked-opportunities tool with a 100%-documented schema and an output schema, the description covers selection context, matching behavior, limitations, and cost. Nothing needed to decide when to call it or how to interpret its output is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds valuable extra semantics by explaining that project context is used for public-aid matching and that PUBLIC_AID output depends on a project being provided. This clarifies the optional project parameter's real effect beyond its schema description.

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 and resource: it 'Ranks actionable French public funding and open procurement opportunities' for a company based on profile, project, and historical contracts. This distinguishes it from broad tender search and neighboring company_fr_* tools by emphasizing company-specific ranking.

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?

Has explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, including a named alternative ('use procurement/fr/search') for broad open-tender searches and a clear exclusion for cases where a guarantee is needed. This leaves little ambiguity about when the tool should be selected.

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?