Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

due-diligence

by pro.tvarka
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Beneficial owners (UBO)

get_beneficial_owners

Declared beneficial owners of a Lithuanian legal entity, with ownership percentages and control basis. Served under the legitimate-interest regime; a purpose is required and is logged.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesLithuanian legal-entity code (juridinio asmens kodas).
screenNoSet true to screen the company and every person named in this answer against the official EU, UN, US (OFAC) and UK sanctions lists. Each potential match comes with its score and the reasons for it. Adds the screening fee to the call.
purposeYesPurpose of processing; logged per call. Required for beneficial-owner data.
interpretNoSet true to add the standardized legal interpretation of the answer: what the data means under Lithuanian law, with statute citations. Adds the interpretation fee to the call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / screen
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to screen the company and every person named in this answer against the official EU, UN, US (OFAC) and UK sanctions lists. Each potential match comes with its score and the reasons for it. Adds the screening fee to the call.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / interpret
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to add the standardized legal interpretation of the answer: what the data means under Lithuanian law, with statute citations. Adds the interpretation fee to the call.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the legal basis (legitimate interest) and that the purpose is logged, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits what happens when an entity has no declared UBOs, any permission/auth requirements, and rate or fee behavior beyond what the schema already states for screen/interpret.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy; the returned data is front-loaded and the legal/usage constraint follows. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 and no annotations, the description usefully names the data shape and the legal regime under which it is served, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It could still say more about edge cases (entity with no declared owners) and the effect of the required purpose, keeping it short of 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the enum values and the fee implications of screen/interpret. The description adds only the purpose-gating note, which the schema itself also states, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Declared beneficial owners of a Lithuanian legal entity') and the content returned ('ownership percentages and control basis'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_participants or lookup_company, which is the only gap at the top band.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a real usage condition — served under the legitimate-interest regime, with a required and logged purpose — which tells the agent this is a purpose-gated lookup. However, it never says when to choose this over get_participants or lookup_company, so routing is left implied.

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

All due-diligence toolsInspect
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