Skip to main content
Glama

Handelsregister

by io.github.jkbngb

Describe fields & capabilities

describe_fields
Read-onlyIdempotent

Schema self-description: the unified id scheme, which filters exist, which countries support which capability, and each country's own field catalog. Read-only.

    Parameters:
    - country (optional, default "all"): "AT" | "DE" | "all" - whose field catalogs to
      include.

    Returns {id_scheme, capabilities, countries, countries_unavailable}. ``id_scheme``
    documents the unified company_id ("AT:123456a", "DE:D2601_HRB135076"; bare national
    ids are accepted, responses always return the prefixed form). ``capabilities`` is
    the per-country capability matrix including each country's supported unified
    filters - a filter absent for a country is applied to the others and reported in a
    notice, never silently dropped. ``countries`` carries each backend's own
    describe_fields payload (code tables, null rules, tool tiers). Call once up front
    when unsure which filter or tool to use; it returns no company data itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoall

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context not available in the annotations: it explains id normalization from bare national ids to prefixed form, that unsupported filters are reported in a notice rather than silently dropped, and that the tool returns no company data. These are meaningful runtime behaviors beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints.

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 description is longer than typical but well organized with clear sections. It front-loads the core identity and read-only note, then elaborates on parameters and return structure. Slightly dense, but every major point earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers behavior, return shape, id normalization, filter handling, and guidance on when to call it. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further web searching.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it documents the country parameter's optionality, default value, allowed values ('AT' | 'DE' | 'all'), and exactly what each selection controls. This adds all meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 identifies the tool as a schema self-description resource and explicitly enumerates what it covers: unified id scheme, available filters, per-country capabilities, and per-country field catalogs. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from the data-returning sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear usage directive: call once up front when unsure which filter or tool to use, and explicitly notes that it returns no company data. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or spell out when to prefer them, so it falls short of a fully explicit routing recommendation.

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

All Handelsregister toolsInspect
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

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct primary purpose, with clear pointers to the right tool for the job. The main possible confusion is between describe_fields/get_coverage and search_companies/search_person, but the descriptions actively disambiguate those boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: describe_fields, export_companies_csv, get_company_details, list_events, search_companies. Even ping fits the predictable style as a simple liveness verb.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well-scoped for a unified company-register facade. Each tool covers a distinct part of the surface: schema, coverage, search, detail, persons, peers, events, statistics, export, and diagnostics.

Completeness5/5

The read-only domain is covered thoroughly: lookup, detail, person search, similarity, event feeds, aggregate stats, and export all exist. Unsupported country-specific features are handled with notices and coverage metadata rather than missing tooling.

Resources