RunOnProof

resolve_uk_legal_entity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.legal_entity.resolve.v1 (AVAILABLE). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`postal_code`	No
`company_name`	No
`company_number`	No	Companies House company number, including any two-letter prefix when applicable.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated key. Send the identical value in the Idempotency-Key header.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Offer-specific facts and machine-action inputs; interpret with decision, coverage and limitations.
`payment`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes	Country, population and explicit coverage limitations.
`decision`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Source-scoped evidence references; absence is never a clean finding.
`replayed`	No
`conditions`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`delivery_id`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`valid_as_of`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`execution_id`	No
`reason_codes`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes
`source_health`	Yes
`machine_action`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`economic_activity`	Yes
`product_or_solution`	Yes
`required_information`	Yes

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It mentions 'Claims are limited to the named official sources,' which hints at data source constraints, but it does not explain what 'claims' refers to, nor does it disclose costs, rate limits, or other operational behaviors. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, so the description adds little value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, but its conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. It is structured as a cryptic label containing a version identifier and an ambiguous phrase. While it is not verbose, the content is not self-explanatory, making it less effective than a clearer, slightly longer description would be.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having an output schema and a non-trivial parameter set, the description is far from complete. It does not mention what the tool returns, how to specify a legal entity (company number vs. name), or any usage context. This is a critical gap for a resolution tool that should guide the agent on when and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not explain any parameter semantics. Schema descriptions cover company_number and idempotency_key, but postal_code and company_name are left undescribed, and the tool description does not compensate for this gap. With 50% schema coverage, the description should clarify parameter usage but fails to do so.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not clearly state what the tool does. It references 'gb.legal_entity.resolve.v1' and mentions 'Claims are limited to the named official sources,' but lacks a plain-language verb and resource. The tool name 'resolve_uk_legal_entity' provides more clarity than the description itself, which is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like 'resolve_legal_entity'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that it is a 'Paid x402 UK tool' without stating use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, and no context is provided for choosing this over similar sibling tools.

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

All RunOnProof tools Inspect

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

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?