Apier MCP Server

Company regulatory obligations

get_company_obligations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all applicable regulatory obligations for a Norwegian organisation, each with its current state and legal reference.

Instructions

Evaluate the Apier Rulebook for a Norwegian organisation and return every applicable regulatory obligation with its current state and legal reference. One entry per obligation: a stable obligation_id (e.g. MVA_FILING_BIMONTHLY), the lovdata legal_reference, the state enum (filed / pending / in_progress / failed / overdue / unknown), the bokmål description inherited byte-for-byte from the Rulebook (never re-translate it), and the freshness window. Deterministic, always against the current instant (no as_of at v1). Choose this for the full obligation menu. Failure modes: NOT_FOUND, SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT (needs read:brreg), VALIDATION_FAILED. For the calendar alone, use get_company_deadlines instead; for the entity-type-level set needing no organisasjonsnummer or key, use get_public_obligations instead. 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/norwegian-company-obligations

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 full rule-engine evaluation: every applicable obligation with stable id, lovdata legal_reference, state enum, and bokmål description.
`metadata`	Yes
`justification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency: deterministic evaluation, current-instant semantics with no as_of in v1, byte-for-byte bokmål descriptions, sandbox behavior, prepaid cost, and credit shortfall behavior. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 dense but well organized: purpose and return shape first, then usage routing, failure modes, sandbox access, cost, and documentation. Each sentence contributes actionable information, and there is no filler or tautology.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers return structure, failure modes, authentication scope, sandbox testing, pricing, credit shortfall, alternatives, and documentation. With an output schema also present, an agent has everything needed to select and 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% and the org_number property description already covers the 9-digit pattern, example, MOD-11 validation, and VALIDATION_FAILED behavior. The tool description adds only supporting context such as sandbox fixture endpoints and the required scope, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: evaluate the Apier Rulebook for a Norwegian organisation and return every applicable obligation with state and legal reference. It also names what the tool is not — get_company_deadlines and get_public_obligations — so an agent can distinguish it from siblings immediately.

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 explicitly routes the agent: choose this for the full obligation menu, use get_company_deadlines for the calendar alone, and use get_public_obligations for entity-type-level obligations that need no organisasjonsnummer or key. It also names failure modes and the required scope (read:brreg), making the selection criteria concrete.

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