HelpMyAgent

French Company Public Contracts

company_fr_public_contracts

Returns public contracts awarded to a French company from consolidated French public procurement award data. Use when: You need public contracts already awarded to a French company. You need historical procurement awards, buyers, amounts, CPV codes or execution-location data linked to a company identifier. Avoid when: You need currently open tenders that a company could bid on; use procurement/fr/search or company/fr/opportunities. You need private-sector contracts or non-public commercial relationships. Limitations: Coverage depends on the consolidated DECP public award dataset and the holder identifiers available in it. Returned totals and summaries describe the matched public records, not all commercial revenue of the company. Price: 0.010 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of awarded public contracts to return
`identifier`	Yes	9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`siren`	Yes
`exists`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`contracts`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`total_count`	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 useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses reliance on the DECP dataset, explains that returned totals describe only matched public records rather than all company revenue, and states the per-call price. It does not contradict the annotations; the readOnlyHint=false is plausibly explained by the paid x402 call and open-world data rather than by state mutation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Use when, Avoid when, Limitations, and Price sections. Every section earns its place and no repetitive or filler content is present.

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 simple 2-parameter schema, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers when to use, when not to use, alternatives, data limitations, and cost. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, with both identifier and limit already well documented via pattern, description, default, and constraints. The description adds contextual meaning about company identifiers and historical procurement data, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource: 'Returns public contracts awarded to a French company from consolidated French public procurement award data.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by naming what it is not for (open tenders) and pointing to alternatives such as procurement/fr/search and company/fr/opportunities.

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' guidance, including concrete sibling alternatives and the conditions that select them. It also clarifies the tool is for historical awarded contracts, not open tenders or private contracts, leaving little to inference.

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?