Agent-native API for Finnish public company data via YTJ. Pay-per-call $0.01 USDC over x402.
Look up a Finnish company by Y-tunnus (business ID) from the YTJ Avoindata registry. Returns structured company information including name, status, legal entity type, and registration dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Finnish Y-tunnus, format 1234567-8 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates by explicitly stating that the tool 'Returns structured company information including name, status, legal entity type, and registration dates,' which informs the agent about the output shape. It does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature) or error handling, but for a lookup tool these are largely implied, and the return-field disclosure adds meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a clear summary of return values. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return fields (name, status, legal entity type, registration dates). It does not cover edge cases, permissions, or error behavior, but such details are less critical for a simple read-only lookup. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id,' with a description: 'Finnish Y-tunnus, format 1234567-8.' The tool description adds no further parameter detail beyond mentioning 'by Y-tunnus,' which is already captured in the schema. Per the calibration rules, high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up a Finnish company by Y-tunnus (business ID) from the YTJ Avoindata registry.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Finnish company by Y-tunnus'), making the action unambiguous. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not applicable, but the description is entirely self-contained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to look up a Finnish company by its Y-tunnus. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined and there are no sibling tools that might compete for the same task. This aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
French & European company registry for AI agents: KYB, sanctions, annual accounts. x402, no API key.
European business verification for AI agents: registry, VAT, sanctions, IBAN. Pay-per-call x402.
Pay-per-call web & EU business intelligence for AI agents (x402 USDC on Base). 11 tools.
Agent bookkeeping, sanctions, KYB, VAT and e-invoice checks - pay per call in USDC
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose of ytj_company_lookup is clearly defined and unambiguous.
The single tool name follows a descriptive convention (registry prefix + object + action), and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate.
Only one tool feels thin for a server, even if the purpose is narrow. The count is borderline per the calibration guidelines, as a single tool may be insufficient for broader expectations.
The tool covers the core operation of looking up a Finnish company by Y-tunnus, but lacks additional likely operations such as searching by name or listing companies, which are minor gaps for this domain.
