Apier MCP Server

Company signing-authority resolver

get_company_authority

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check who can legally sign for a Norwegian company by submitting its 9-digit organisasjonsnummer, returning a classification such as sole, joint, or by_role.

Instructions

Answer "who can legally sign for this Norwegian company, and how?" before acting on its behalf. Given a 9-digit organisasjonsnummer it returns a deterministic signing-authority classification — sole, joint, by_role, prokura_only, no_authority, or unknown — from the open Fullmakttjenesten signing combinations plus the signaturrett / prokura role-holders. kombinasjon_available: false flags a degraded answer. coded_authority adds the coded model over the mirrored clauses with their verification stamps (per oppslag: coded_verified, coded_unverified, free_text_uninterpreted, absent_verified, no_record_unverified) — an absence is never collapsed into a no. No legal citation is asserted. Failure modes: NOT_FOUND, SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT (needs read:brreg), UPSTREAM_UNAVAILABLE, VALIDATION_FAILED. For a fast go/no-go verdict, use get_company_verification instead. This answers STATUTORY authority — no actor input, no Altinn delegations. For a SPECIFIC person's actions, use list_acting_capacity; for the consumer's own delegation, use check_authorization. No API key? Bearer apier_sandbox_test_ (fresh suffix) serves synthetic fixtures; org numbers: GET /api/v1/sandbox/fixtures. Cost: 50 øre (NOK 0.50) per call, prepaid (prices: the get_pricing tool or GET /api/v1/pricing; a shortfall returns INSUFFICIENT_CREDITS with top_up_url). Docs: https://www.apier.no/docs/guides/signature-rights-norwegian-company

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_number`	Yes	9-digit Norwegian organisasjonsnummer (Brønnøysund ID); MOD-11-checked up-front — a failing value is rejected as VALIDATION_FAILED, so correct the number rather than retrying it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	No
`result`	Yes	The /authority answer: a deterministic `classification`, `combinations[]`, the `signaturrett_holders` / `prokura_holders` lists, `kombinasjon_available`, and the stamp-honest `coded_authority` model over the mirrored clauses. No legal citation is asserted.
`metadata`	Yes
`justification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds deterministic classification, degraded-answer flagging, verification stamp semantics, absence-never-collapsed-to-no, failure modes, and cost/credit behavior, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and output classification, then organized into valuable sections: caveats, alternatives, failure modes, sandbox access, pricing, and docs. Dense rather than wasteful, though long enough that a perfect 5 is not warranted.

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?

Complete for a read-only resolver: output schema covers return structure, and the description supplies selection context, failure modes, authentication requirements, synthetic-fixture guidance, cost, and documentation link. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: the input schema already documents the 9-digit pattern, an example, and MOD-11 validation behavior. The description only repeats the basic org-number requirement and adds no meaningful parameter detail 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: resolves statutory signing authority for a Norwegian company from an org number. Lists the exact classification values and distinguishes itself from get_company_verification, list_acting_capacity, and check_authorization.

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?

Explicitly scopes when to use the tool: before acting on behalf of a company, with no actor input or Altinn delegations. Names concrete alternatives and their selection conditions, and even covers sandbox usage when no API key is available.

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