ENTIA Entity Verification

Official

by ENTIA-IA

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools have mostly distinct purposes. `borme_lookup` focuses on Spanish mercantile acts, while `entity_lookup` provides broader verification across 34 countries. `get_competitors` and `search_entities` both search for businesses but with different focuses (competitors vs. general registry). `verify_vat` and `zone_profile` are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., `borme_lookup`, `entity_lookup`, `get_competitors`). Verbs like lookup, get, search, verify are appropriate and descriptive of the action.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for entity verification. Each tool adds value without redundancy. The count is within the ideal range (3-15) and matches the domain's complexity.
Completeness4/5
Covers core verification workflows: entity lookup, VAT verification, competitor discovery, and registry search. Minor gaps include no direct tool for detailed corporate history or financial data, but these are reasonable omissions for the stated purpose.
Average 4.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and accepted input formats, but does not mention safety, authentication needs, or error behavior. It adds some value beyond schema but lacks depth for a no-annotation scenario.
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?
The description is concise (6 lines) and well-structured: purpose, usage conditions, return fields, example, and parameter description. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given a single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers input/output adequately and provides usage context. However, it lacks details on error handling or not-found cases, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the 'query' parameter: it accepts company name, CIF, EU VAT, or LEI, with examples. This is essential for correct invocation.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Verify' and resource 'business identity' across 34 countries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like borme_lookup (BORME acts) and verify_vat (VAT) by focusing on identity verification with multiple identifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit 'Use when' with concrete user queries ('is this company legit?', 'check CIF B80988678'), giving clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the examples and sibling names imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes real-time live check, speed (sub-second), and return fields (valid, legal name, address, country). Lacks details on rate limits or error handling.
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?
Well-structured with purpose, usage, returns, and args. Some redundancy (examples repeated), but overall efficient and front-loaded.
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 one parameter and an output schema (implied), description explains return values adequately. Could mention VIES availability, but sufficient for a simple verification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, vat_id, with description explaining required format (country prefix, examples). Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates with format and examples.
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?
The description clearly states the tool verifies EU VAT numbers via VIES, with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like borme_lookup and entity_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: when user asks about VAT validity, verification, or EU company registration. Provides examples but does not explicitly mention when not to use, though context implies it's VAT-specific.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns verified entities and lists the fields. It could further disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, but the provided details are adequate for a search tool.
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?
The description is well-structured with sections for when to use, returns, and parameters. It is informative but slightly lengthy; a more concise wording could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return fields comprehensively. It addresses all key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: q, country (with default ES), sector (with examples), city, and limit (with range). It adds value beyond the schema by providing context and defaults.
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?
The description clearly states the tool browses the entity registry by name, sector, or city, and provides concrete examples like 'find me a dentist in Madrid'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., entity_lookup) by focusing on broad search rather than specific lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly specifies when to use the tool with example user queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like entity_lookup, which would help an agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description reveals key behavioral details: it covers 40M+ acts from 2009-2026, returns act count, key officers, founding date, and events. It also specifies the query format (CIF without ES prefix). This is transparent, though it could mention rate limits or data freshness.
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?
The description is concise, well-structured with line breaks for examples, and uses front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (context signals), the description adequately covers input format, output summary (acts count, officers, events), and scope. It is complete for this simple tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'query' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining it can be a company name or Spanish CIF without the ES prefix, with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool looks up Spanish mercantile acts from BORME, providing specific use cases like 'who founded X?' and examples. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., entity_lookup, verify_vat) by focusing on BORME records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit usage triggers (e.g., 'when user asks...') and example queries, which is clear guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'Verified competitors with name, phone, website, address,' implying a read-only operation. While it doesn't detail authorization or rate limits, the behavior is sufficiently disclosed for a simple search tool.
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?
The description is concise, well-structured with sections for usage, returns, and examples. Every sentence is meaningful, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage triggers, return format, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, though the description already covers them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with examples, valid values (e.g., sector slugs, city names), defaults, and ranges. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema.
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?
The description clearly states 'Find competitors in the same sector and city,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like borme_lookup or verify_vat, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool with user query examples ('who are the competitors?'), but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings. However, the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources and types of data returned. While it doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or data freshness, it is sufficiently transparent for a straightforward data retrieval tool.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use when, returns, examples, args). Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, straightforward output), the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, when to use, input format, and output contents. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but the description compensates fully by describing the only parameter 'postal_code' with format ('Spanish 5-digit postal code') and examples ('28001, 08001, 41001...'). This adds essential context beyond the schema's title and type.
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?
The description explicitly states 'Spanish socioeconomic data by postal code' and lists specific data sources (INE/SEPE/AEAT/MITMA/MITECO) and metrics (income, unemployment, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., entity_lookup, borme_lookup) which target different domains.
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?
The description provides explicit 'Use when' guidance with examples of user queries, and includes example inputs and outputs. This clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ENTIA Entity Verification MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![ENTIA Entity Verification MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ENTIA-IA/entia-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ENTIA-IA/entia-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ENTIA Entity Verification MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ENTIA-IA/entia-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ENTIA-IA/entia-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ENTIA-IA/entia-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server