Skip to main content
Glama
Tiwas

Firmaradar

List Companies by Industry (NACE)

firmaradar_list_companies_in_nace
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Norwegian companies by NACE industry code with optional filters for status, location, and employee size. Helps perform sector analysis.

Instructions

List Norwegian companies in a specific NACE industry code (or code prefix), optionally filtered by status, kommune and size. Useful for sector analysis ('all active restaurants in Oslo with > 5 employees').

NACE format warning: Use the EU NACE Rev. 2 format with a trailing zero (e.g. 62.100, 62.200, 58.290). The Norwegian SN2007 format (62.01, 62.02) returns 0 hits — we do not store SN2007. If you are unsure about a code, try list_companies_in_nace with different formats first, or verify against https://www.brreg.no.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesNACE code or prefix. Norwegian BRREG uses 5-digit SN2007 codes internally (e.g. '56.110' for restaurants, '47.111' for grocery stores). Any prefix works: '56' matches all serving (2-digit), '56.1' matches restaurants/cafes (3-digit), '56.11' matches restaurant operations (4-digit), '56.110' matches the most specific level (5-digit). If a 4-digit code yields no results, try appending '0' (e.g. '56.110' instead of '56.10').
statusNo
kommuneNoNorwegian kommunenummer — EXACTLY 4 digits, zero-padded. Examples: '0301' = Oslo, '4601' = Bergen, '5001' = Trondheim, '1103' = Stavanger. Kommune-NAMES are NOT accepted — translate the name to kommunenummer first.
min_ansatteNo
max_ansatteNo
limitNo
cursorNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the filtering options and format constraints, but could mention what the output contains (e.g., company list format).

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 front-loaded with purpose and includes a clear warning block. It is mostly concise, though the NACE format warning could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and diverse sibling tools, the description covers key usage context, format gotchas, and filtering options. Missing output format description is a minor gap, but overall it is quite complete.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for 'code' and 'kommune', but other parameters (status, min_ansatte, max_ansatte, limit, cursor) have minimal description. The main description only briefly mentions filtering by status, kommune, and size, adding little beyond the schema for those.

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 lists Norwegian companies by NACE industry code, with specific examples like 'all active restaurants in Oslo'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., risk checks, company details) by focusing on industry-based filtering.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (sector analysis) and a crucial NACE format warning (EU vs SN2007) with a fallback suggestion to try different code formats. Also advises verifying against brreg.no for uncertainty.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/Tiwas/firmaradar-mcp'

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