Skip to main content
Glama

UK Due Diligence

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Company Charges

company_charges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the complete Companies House charge history for a company.

Returns every registered charge (secured debt) — current and historic — with status, dates, secured parties, and what each charge covers (fixed/floating/negative-pledge flags and any free-text particulars). Satisfaction is represented as satisfied_on plus a charge-satisfaction filing entry, not a separate 'release' record. company_profile.has_charges is a True/False/unknown summary derived from this same data; use this tool when the specific charges matter, not just whether any exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_numberYesCompanies House company number (8 digits, e.g. '03782379'). Returned by company_search.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chargesNoEvery charge, current and historic.
total_countYesTotal charges returned.
company_numberYesCompanies House company number.
satisfied_countNoUpstream count of satisfied charges, or null if not provided.
unfiltered_countNoUpstream unfiltered charge count, or null if not provided.
part_satisfied_countNoUpstream count of part-satisfied charges, or null if not provided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds genuinely useful semantics: satisfaction is represented as satisfied_on plus a charge-satisfaction filing rather than a separate release record. It also explains the relationship to company_profile.has_charges. It stops short of discussing possible pagination or absence-of-result behavior, but these are minor given the rest.

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?

Three sentences, each of which earns its place: scope, return semantics, and usage guidance. The description is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description gives the full behavioral contract for the tool: what data is returned, how satisfaction is encoded, and when an agent should prefer this over the related company_profile summary. With a full input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, company_number, whose description covers the 8-digit format and where to obtain it from company_search. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline schema-only value of 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?

Description leads with a specific verb 'Fetch' and a well-defined resource, 'the complete Companies House charge history for a company.' It enumerates the returned charge fields and states that charges include both current and historic entries, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly contrasts itself with company_profile.has_charges, a summary field for whether any charges exist, and says to use this tool 'when the specific charges matter, not just whether any exist.' That gives an agent a clear decision rule for selecting this over the relevant sibling tool.

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

All UK Due Diligence 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The domain-specific tools are clearly distinct (search vs profile for each register), and the generic search/fetch tools are designed to route across them. Potential overlap between company_officers and company_psc is resolved by clear descriptions of officers vs beneficial ownership. Slight ambiguity exists between generic fetch/search and the domain-specific counterparts, but the routing logic is well-documented.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern with clear prefixes (charity_, company_, disqualified_, gazette_). Exceptions like company_officers, company_psc, sanctions_screen, and vat_validate deviate from the verb-first convention, and generic tools (fetch, search, get_prompt, list_prompts) do not follow the pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and predictable despite a few outliers.

Tool Count4/5

With 17 tools, the server sits slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth of the domain (Companies House, Charity Commission, disqualifications, Gazette insolvency, sanctions, land registry, VAT) justifies the count. Each tool serves a distinct data source or action, and the two prompt-management tools are standard MCP utilities. The count feels appropriate rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core due diligence workflow: searching and retrieving profiles for companies, charities, and disqualified directors, plus insolvency notices, sanctions screening, land transactions, and VAT validation. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for company accounts or court judgments, but these are not core to the apparent purpose and can be worked around.

Resources