Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AccountsOS

by io.github.paulgosnell
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check A UK Company

check_company
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a UK limited company on its public Companies House record and show it as a card: when its accounts, confirmation statement and Corporation Tax are due, whether anything is overdue or was filed late, and a score out of 100 with the reasons. Needs no account. Use it whenever someone asks about a UK company's deadlines or standing, for example "when is my confirmation statement due", "are my accounts overdue", "is this company in good standing" or "check my company". Find the number by name with lookup_company first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_number": "<company_number>"
    },
    "name": "check_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNoWhich company to read, by name or id, when the account has more than one (see list_companies). Leave it out to use the only company, or the default.
company_numberYesThe Companies House number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the data comes from the public Companies House record, no account/authentication is required, and the response is a rendered card containing a score plus reasons. It stops short of covering failure modes (company not found, rate limits) or latency.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage triggers, then the prerequisite. The middle sentence is a long accumulation of output fields and example queries, but every clause maps to a distinct piece of information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (card, due dates, overdue/late status, score out of 100 with reasons). Combined with the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the provenance hint that the number can be found by name via lookup_company. It never mentions the optional 'company' parameter (which itself accepts a name or id), leaving an agent to reconcile 'find the number by name' against a parameter that also takes a name.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Check a UK limited company on its public Companies House record') and enumerates exactly what is returned: accounts/confirmation statement/Corporation Tax due dates, overdue or late-filed flags, and a score out of 100 with reasons. This clearly separates it from lookup_company, which only resolves a number by name.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with representative user phrasings ('when is my confirmation statement due', 'are my accounts overdue', 'is this company in good standing') and routes the agent to lookup_company first when it only has a name. It also states 'Needs no account', removing a common gating question.

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

All AccountsOS 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