Skip to main content
Glama

HelpMyAgent

by io.github.helpmyagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Comparable French companies

company_fr_peers

Finds administratively comparable French companies for later comparison or benchmarking. Use when: Finds administratively comparable French companies for later comparison or benchmarking. You need administratively comparable French companies selected from activity, size and geographic criteria. You want a peer set that can feed a later benchmark or manual comparison. Avoid when: You need procurement-specific competitors observed in public-contract awards; use company/fr/public-contract-competitors. You want metrics and relative positioning rather than just a peer set; use company/fr/benchmark. Limitations: Peer relationships are inferred from public administrative attributes and do not prove economic comparability. The returned peer set depends on source coverage and the selected geographic scope. Price: 0.020 USD per call via x402. Paid-call behavior: source records are not modified, but a successful invocation can consume the advertised x402 payment; the payment-required challenge is free, and repeating the tool after a completed paid invocation may require a new payment. Accepted x402 networks: eip155:8453, xrpl:0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records returned by this call. (minimum 1; maximum 25; default 10).
scopeNoGeographic comparison scope controlling whether candidates are selected by department, region or all of France. (default region; allowed values: department, region, france).region
identifierYesFrench company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPublicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result.
peersYesStructured value returned for “peers” as defined by this API contract.
scopeYesStructured value returned for “scope” as defined by this API contract.
sirenYesNormalized 9-digit French SIREN when available.
existsYesWhether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source.
criteriaYesStructured value returned for “criteria” as defined by this API contract.
identifierYesIdentifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable.
limitationsNoKnown interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "identifier",
-  "exists",
-  "siren",
-  "name",
-  "scope",
-  "criteria",
-  "peers",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "identifier",
+  "exists",
+  "siren",
+  "name",
+  "scope",
+  "criteria",
+  "peers"
+]
  2. Changed13 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured input parameters for the company/fr/peers API."
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"French company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of records returned by this call. (minimum 1; maximum 25; default 10)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Geographic comparison scope controlling whether candidates are selected by department, region or all of France. (default region; allowed values: department, region, france)."
    • addedOutput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured result returned by the company/fr/peers API."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / criteria / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “criteria” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / exists / description
      Added value: +"Whether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"Identifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / limitations / description
      Added value: +"Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / name
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Publicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result."
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / peers / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “peers” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “scope” as defined by this API contract."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / siren
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Normalized 9-digit French SIREN when available."
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

All annotations are false or unhelpful, so the description bears the full burden. It explains that source records are not modified, that successful paid invocations consume an x402 payment, that the challenge is free, that repeating the call may require new payment, and that peer relationships are inferred and coverage-dependent. This is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is well-structured with Use/Avoid/Limitations/Price/Paid-call sections and front-loaded purpose. However, the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim in the 'Use when' section, wasting a sentence and slightly hurting conciseness.

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 an output schema, a simple required identifier parameter, and low-value annotations, the description covers conceptual behavior, alternatives, limitations, pricing, and paid-call semantics. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, defaults, enums, and patterns. The description adds only high-level context about geographic criteria and peer-set selection, which reinforces but does not extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States an action ('Finds administratively comparable French companies') with a specific resource and selection criteria (activity, size, geographic scope). It also distinguishes itself from the closest siblings by clarifying it returns a peer set rather than procurement competitors or benchmark metrics.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance naming alternatives (company/fr/public-contract-competitors, company/fr/benchmark) and the conditions that route to them. This removes ambiguity about when to invoke this tool over nearly identical siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All HelpMyAgent toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources