Skip to main content
Glama

UK Due Diligence

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Officer Appointment History

officer_appointments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a person's full company appointment history by officer ID.

Returns every appointment — current and historic — with each company's number, name, status, role, and appointment/resignation dates. Use company_officers first to find an officer_id, then this tool to discover other companies that person has been a director or secretary of, including dissolved or insolvent ones not mentioned anywhere else. Always returns full history; there is no current-only filter, since historical discovery is the point.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
officer_idYesCompanies House officer ID. Returned as officer_id on entries from company_officers.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOfficer name as recorded at CH.
totalYesTotal appointments returned.
officer_idYesCompanies House officer ID.
active_countNoUpstream count of appointments Companies House categorizes as 'active' — this reflects the officer's own appointment/resignation state at that company, NOT whether the company itself is currently trading. An appointment at a company in liquidation or administration still counts as active here if the officer was never formally resigned. Check each appointment's own company_status field for the company's actual status. Null if not provided upstream.
appointmentsNoEvery appointment, current and historic.
date_of_birthNoPartial date of birth (month/year), or empty if not disclosed upstream.
inactive_countNoUpstream count of appointments Companies House categorizes as 'inactive', passed through as-is. Exact categorization semantics have not been independently verified against per-appointment data — treat as an unverified upstream fact, not a derived signal, or null if not provided.
resigned_countNoUpstream count of resigned appointments, 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructive=False, so safety is fully covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it always returns full history, includes dissolved or insolvent companies, and includes historical appointments. This is sufficient, though it stops short of mentioning response shape, which is addressed by the output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and result are in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add workflow, scope, and intent without waste. Every sentence 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?

Given a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and complete safety/discovery annotations, the description provides all needed operational context: what the result includes, how to obtain the required identifier, and that there is no approximation. Nothing material is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret this tool.

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 the officer_id schema description already explains the type and provenance ('Returned as officer_id on entries from company_officers'). The tool description repeats this workflow context without adding new parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('a person's full company appointment history'), and key identifier ('by officer ID'). It also differentiates this tool from the sibling company_officers by explaining that this tool reveals other companies beyond the one used to obtain the officer_id.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call company_officers first to get an officer_id, then use this tool to find other appointments. It also states an exclusion condition—there is no current-only filter—so an agent knows when not to expect limited results. This is strong directional guidance relative to sibling tools.

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