Skip to main content
Glama

UK Due Diligence

by io.github.paulieb89

Fetch Full Record from UK Due Diligence Register

fetch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full record for an ID returned by search.

Routes by prefix to the appropriate register:

  • company:{number} → Companies House full profile

  • charity:{number} → Charity Commission full profile

  • disqualification:{officer_id} → Disqualified director full record

  • notice:{notice_id} → Gazette notice full legal text

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPrefixed record ID returned by search. Format: company:{number}, charity:{number}, disqualification:{officer_id}, or notice:{notice_id}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining how the tool routes by prefix to the appropriate register, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 succinct: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of routing rules. Every sentence is informative, there is no unnecessary text, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how routing works. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the usage context is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers the parameter format 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each prefix to its target register, enriching the semantics beyond the schema's format description. This helps the agent construct valid IDs and anticipate the output type.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Fetch the full record for an ID returned by search.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the routing mechanism by prefix, which clarifies that this is a unified fetcher across multiple registers. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description gives a clear context: use this for IDs returned by search. It implicitly differentiates from specific profile tools via the prefix routing, but it does not explicitly state alternatives like 'use company_profile if you already have a company number.' A slight gap in explicit exclusion guidance.

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