Company Lookup (GLEIF LEI, UK, Norway)

lookup_company

Confirm that a company exists, is active and is who it claims to be before onboarding, invoicing or contracting. Searches GLEIF (global, LEI holders only) and Norway's Brønnøysund register by name, LEI or number: legal name, status, number, jurisdiction, address, legal form, incorporation date, parents and (Norway) officers, with source links. UK Companies House is not enabled. Use when you need an official registry record for a counterparty. $0.02 per call, USDC on Base (x402).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lookup_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No	20-character LEI
`name`	No	Company name
`limit`	No	Max candidate matches (default 5)
`query`	No	Company name, LEI or registry number (auto-detected)
`jurisdiction`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. GB, NO, DK, US
`include_officers`	No	Include officers/owners where available (default true)
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.
`registration_number`	No	National registry number (e.g. UK company number, Norwegian org.nr)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses source coverage limits (GLEIF is LEI holders only, Norway officers only, UK disabled) and the payment model ($0.02/call, USDC on Base, x402, and that omitting payment_signature yields payment requirements). It does not cover rate limits, failure modes, or latency, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the purpose, then sources/returns, then the coverage exclusion, then cost. Dense but every clause carries information (sources, field list, exclusions, pricing). The long colon-list of returned fields is the only slightly bulky element.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and source links, and it covers cost and payment mechanics. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though details on error handling and partial-coverage responses are absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that a single lookup accepts name, LEI or number (explaining the auto-detecting 'query' parameter) and that officer data is limited to Norway, which scopes the 'include_officers' parameter.

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 ('Confirm that a company exists, is active and is who it claims to be') and names the exact data sources (GLEIF, Brønnøysund) plus the keying options (name, LEI, number). No siblings exist to confuse it with, and the returned field list makes the scope unambiguous.

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 usage context ('before onboarding, invoicing or contracting', 'when you need an official registry record for a counterparty') and an explicit limitation ('UK Companies House is not enabled'), which tells the agent when this tool will fail to cover a case. With no sibling tools, this is as complete as routing guidance can be.

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

All Company Lookup (GLEIF LEI, UK, Norway) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?