Skip to main content
Glama

UK Due Diligence

by io.github.paulieb89

Search UK Due Diligence Registers

search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search across all UK due diligence registers simultaneously.

Searches Companies House, Charity Commission, disqualified directors, and Gazette insolvency notices in parallel. Returns a list of result IDs — use fetch with each ID to retrieve the full record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesCompany name, charity name, director name, or keyword to search for across all UK due diligence registers

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that searches run in parallel and that results are IDs, not full records, requiring a follow-up fetch call. This adds meaningful behavioral expectations.

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 concise, structured in three sentences: what, scope, and how to use results. No redundant words or vague statements.

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 aggregate search tool, the description covers the essential elements: service scope, parallel behavior, and result handling. The output schema and annotations supply additional context, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already documents the query parameter thoroughly, including its type, length constraints, and semantic meaning. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches all UK due diligence registers simultaneously, naming the specific registers (Companies House, Charity Commission, disqualified directors, Gazette insolvency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual registers, making the purpose 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?

It specifies this is a cross-register search ('across all UK due diligence registers simultaneously') and that it returns IDs for use with fetch, implying the workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools provide that context.

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