Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

due-diligence

by pro.tvarka
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up a Lithuanian company

lookup_company

Core registry profile of a Lithuanian legal entity: name, legal form, status, registered address, registration dates, capital, activities and current management. Current data with officially attested provenance.

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.
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 are supplied, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses data currency and attested provenance ('Current data with officially attested provenance'), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. Fee-bearing behavior is only disclosed in the schema's parameter descriptions, not in the description itself.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents an agent most needs to judge relevance. The trailing provenance sentence is short and does add a trust signal, but it is mildly promotional rather than operational, keeping it just below a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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 must carry the whole burden. It effectively serves as a mini output schema by listing returned fields, but omits return format, response size, pagination and error/not-found handling for a paid, disputed-entity lookup where those matter.

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 baseline is 3. The 'code', 'screen' and 'interpret' parameters are fully documented in the schema, including match scoring, statute citations and fee implications, and the description adds no further parameter-level meaning.

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 ('look up' via the title/name) and a precisely scoped resource, then enumerates the exact fields returned: name, legal form, status, registered address, registration dates, capital, activities, management. That field list cleanly separates it from siblings like get_beneficial_owners, get_court_cases, get_real_estate and get_seizures, which each target a narrower slice of the same entity.

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?

The framing as the 'core registry profile' implies it is the base lookup you start from, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives. In particular it never mentions the sibling screen_sanctions, even though its own 'screen' parameter overlaps with that tool's purpose, leaving the choice to inference.

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