ENTIA Entity Verification MCP

Entity Lookup

entity_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up any business entity by name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, or LEI. Free callers receive a trace-level identity preview; authenticated callers receive the full paid dossier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Company name, CIF/NIF (B82846825), EU VAT (ESB82846825), or LEI (20 chars)
`name`	No	Alias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `name`.
`query`	No	Alias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `query`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	No
`found`	No	True only when an identity anchor corroborated the query
`query`	No
`entity`	No	Verified identity: legal name, tax id, address, sector
`integrity`	No	Tamper-evidence MAC. Not an electronic signature
`error_code`	No
`provenance`	No	Publisher and data sources of this answer
`data_coverage`	No	Which sources answered and which did not
`registry_data`	No	Official registry payload (BORME/GLEIF/VIES/native)
`coherence_errors`	No
`economic_profile`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about auth-dependent response tiers: free callers get a trace-level preview while authenticated callers get the full paid dossier. This is useful behavior beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the auth-tier distinction is stated efficiently.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety semantics, the description adequately supports invocation. It covers scope, input types, and auth-dependent behavior. The only gap is the lack of guidance on how this tool relates to similar siblings.

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%, with all three parameters already well-documented in the schema. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, but it also adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already states.

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 clear verb and object ('Look up any business entity') and enumerates accepted identifiers (name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, LEI). It distinguishes itself from a generic search tool by emphasizing direct identifier-based lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_entities or get_full_dossier.

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 description implies this is for looking up a specific entity when you already have an identifier or exact name, but it does not state when to use this instead of siblings like search_entities, professional_lookup, or get_full_dossier. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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

All ENTIA Entity Verification MCP 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes: entity lookup vs. full dossier vs. VAT verification vs. professional lookup are clearly different. However, get_entia_home and get_entity_home_projection are very similar (both about Entia Home) and could cause confusion, though descriptions clarify the difference. Overall, overlaps are minimal and well-described.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming mixes conventions: 'get_' prefix is used for 8 tools, but others like 'entity_lookup', 'professional_lookup', 'zone_profile' use noun phrases without a verb. 'run_risk_audit' and 'verify_vat' are verb-based but follow different patterns. The inconsistency could confuse an agent expecting a uniform verb_noun structure.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server covers a broad but well-scoped domain of entity verification and business intelligence. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the intended functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core entity lookup, search, dossier, VAT, professional verification, and even added value like risk audit and zone profiling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for updating entity data), but for a read-heavy verification service, the set is comprehensive and leaves few dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?