What can you do with this server?

This MCP server enables due diligence on Russian legal entities and individual entrepreneurs by aggregating data from public federal registries (FNS, EFRSB, FSSP, arbitration courts, and others). Tools available: * check_contractor — Primary tool: full counterparty check by INN or OGRN, returning an aggregated report with a deterministic verdict (safe_to_proceed, manual_review_required, high_risk_do_not_proceed, impossible_contractor_defunct) and actionable recommendations. * check_inn — Retrieves a company/entrepreneur profile card from EGRUL/EGRIP by INN (taxpayer ID). * check_ogrn — Retrieves a company profile card by OGRN (legal entity) or OGRNIP (sole proprietor). * get_legal_status — Returns the current legal lifecycle status (active, liquidating, bankruptcy, liquidated, reorganizing, or excluded as inactive), enriched with EFRSB bankruptcy data. * get_okveds — Returns main and supplementary OKVED (Russian industry classification) codes with human-readable descriptions. * get_directors_history — Returns current director/manager information (full historical changes planned for future versions). * check_for_red_flags — Runs 8 risk checks: mass registration address, mass director, disqualified director, active bankruptcy records, tax debts, missing tax reporting, open enforcement proceedings (bailiff service), and active arbitration lawsuits where the counterparty is a defendant. * ping — Diagnostic tool to verify the server is running and reachable. Data sources: egrul.nalog.ru (EGRUL/EGRIP), bankrot.fedresurs.ru (EFRSB), pb.nalog.ru (FNS Transparent Business), fssp.gov.ru (bailiff proceedings), kad.arbitr.ru (arbitration courts), and local FNS open data registries.

de en es ja ko ru zh

mcp-fns-check

by atomno-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

atomno-mcp-fns-check

MCP server for verifying Russian counterparties (legal entities and individual entrepreneurs) via public Federal Tax Service data: EGRUL/EGRIP, EFRSB, "Transparent Business", FSSP, and KAD.

build version license mcp tests coverage

Ready to be connected to Claude Desktop, Cursor, Claude Code, Cline, and any other client compatible with the Model Context Protocol (MCP).

Why

An AI agent (Claude, Cursor, etc.) usually knows nothing about Russian counterparties: EGRUL is not indexed properly by search engines, data in the FNS Transparent Business portal is behind POST requests and CAPTCHA, and EFRSB provides HTML. This MCP server gives the agent seven tools through which it can get a complete picture in a single call:

Who they are: name, address, OKVED, director.
Status: active, in liquidation, bankruptcy, liquidated, reorganization.
Is it safe to work with them: mass address, mass director, disqualification, bankruptcy, tax debts, failure to file reports, enforcement proceedings, arbitration cases.

The main tool — check_contractor(identifier) — accepts an INN or OGRN and returns an aggregated report with a verdict (safe_to_proceed / manual_review_required / high_risk_do_not_proceed / impossible_contractor_defunct) and a list of specific recommendations.

Related MCP server: mcp-egrul

Quick Start

Installation

pip install atomno-mcp-fns-check

Or via uv / pipx:

uv pip install atomno-mcp-fns-check
# или
pipx install atomno-mcp-fns-check

Verifying Operation

atomno-mcp-fns-check --version
# → atomno-mcp-fns-check 0.1.1

atomno-mcp-fns-check --help
# → полный список флагов: --transport / --host / --port / --log-level

By default, the package runs as a stdio-MCP server: the agent communicates with it via stdin/stdout JSON-RPC. You cannot "poke" it directly from the shell — connect it to an MCP client. For network scenarios, the --transport {http,sse,streamable-http} flag is available with --host/--port.

Connecting to MCP Clients

Cursor

Edit mcp.json (Cursor → Settings → Cursor Settings → MCP):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "fns-check": {
      "command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check"
    }
  }
}

Restart Cursor. In the chat, ask: "Check counterparty INN 7707083893" — the agent will call check_contractor itself.

Claude Desktop

Edit claude_desktop_config.json (macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/, Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "fns-check": {
      "command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check"
    }
  }
}

Restart Claude Desktop.

Claude Code (CLI)

claude mcp add fns-check atomno-mcp-fns-check

Cline (VS Code)

In cline_mcp_settings.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "fns-check": {
      "command": "atomno-mcp-fns-check",
      "disabled": false,
      "autoApprove": []
    }
  }
}

Tools

Tool	Purpose	Input	Sources
`check_contractor`	Main. Full check by a single identifier + deterministic verdict and recommendations	`identifier: str` (INN 10/12 or OGRN 13/15)	all 5
`check_inn`	Basic EGRUL card	`inn: str`	egrul.nalog.ru
`check_ogrn`	Basic card by OGRN/OGRNIP	`ogrn: str`	egrul.nalog.ru
`get_legal_status`	Life status with enrichment	`inn` or `ogrn`	EGRUL + EFRSB
`get_okveds`	OKVED codes with descriptions	`inn` or `ogrn`	EGRUL + OKVED-2 dictionary
`get_directors_history`	Current director (+ history as per Open Data)	`inn: str`	EGRUL
`check_for_red_flags`	8 risk checks (4 basic + 4 extended)	`inn: str`	all 5

Public sources used:

egrul.nalog.ru — EGRUL/EGRIP, counterparty card.
bankrot.fedresurs.ru — EFRSB (Unified Federal Register of Bankruptcy Information).
pb.nalog.ru — FNS Transparent Business (tax debts, failure to file reports).
fssp.gov.ru — FSSP Enforcement Proceedings Data Bank.
kad.arbitr.ru — Arbitration Case File.
Local FNS registry slices — mass addresses, mass directors, disqualified persons (loaded by the atomno-mcp-fns-etl script from FNS Open Data).

Example `check_contractor` response

{
  "identifier": "7707083893",
  "identifier_type": "inn",
  "inn": "7707083893",
  "ogrn": "1027700132195",
  "card": {
    "name": {"full": "ПАО СБЕРБАНК", "short": "СБЕРБАНК"},
    "status": "active",
    "address": {"full": "117997, Г.Москва, УЛ. ВАВИЛОВА, Д. 19", "is_mass_address": false},
    "director": {"full_name": "Греф Г. О.", "position": "Президент"},
    "okved_main": {"code": "64.19", "name": "Денежное посредничество прочее"}
  },
  "legal_status": {"status": "active", "status_label_ru": "Действующее", "sources_checked": ["egrul", "efrsb"]},
  "risks": {"overall_risk_level": "low", "overall_risk_score": 0, "flags": [], "errors": []},
  "verdict_action": "safe_to_proceed",
  "verdict_reason_ru": "Статус «Действующее», уровень риска — low (score 0/100). Препятствий к заключению сделки по открытым источникам не найдено.",
  "recommendations": [
    "По открытым источникам препятствий к заключению сделки не обнаружено. Соблюдайте стандартные меры должной осмотрительности (ст. 54.1 НК РФ): копия устава, приказ на руководителя, договор."
  ],
  "sources": {"sources_queried": ["efrsb", "egrul", "fssp", "kad", "pb_fns", "registries"]},
  "tier": "open",
  "checked_at": "2026-04-24T20:15:00Z"
}

Behavior during source failures

EGRUL is the only blocking source. If it is unavailable, check_contractor raises SourceUnavailableError (the agent will receive a human-readable message).
Other sources are mixed in on a best-effort basis: CAPTCHA on FSSP, antibot on KAD, 5xx on pb.nalog.ru — everything is collected in risks.errors[] and does NOT crash the report. The high-level verdict becomes manual_review_required.

Configuration

All settings are via environment variables. No credentials are required (sources are public).

Variable	Description	Default
`MCP_FNS_CACHE_DB`	Path to the SQLite cache file	`./atomno_mcp_fns_check_cache.sqlite`
`MCP_FNS_REGISTRIES_DB`	Path to the SQLite registry file (mass addresses/directors/disqualifications)	`<cache>.registries.sqlite`
`MCP_FNS_CACHE_TTL_HOURS`	TTL for cached cards, hours	`168` (7 days)
`MCP_FNS_HTTP_TIMEOUT`	HTTP timeout, seconds	`15`
`MCP_FNS_USER_AGENT`	HTTP client User-Agent	`atomno-mcp-fns-check/0.1 (+https://github.com/atomno-labs/mcp-fns-check)`
`MCP_FNS_LOG_LEVEL`	Logging level (DEBUG/INFO/WARNING/ERROR)	`INFO`

Template — .env.example.

Local FNS Registries

Registries of mass addresses / directors / disqualified persons are CSV/XML dumps from FNS Open Data. The package comes with a built-in mini-seed (registries_seed.json, synthetic test records) — it is enough for the tools to work "out of the box" and show flags on test INNs.

For production checks, update the registries with full slices via the atomno-mcp-fns-etl CLI:

atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry mass_addresses --source ./fns_open_data/ulm.csv --commit
atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry mass_directors --source ./fns_open_data/uchredt.csv --commit
atomno-mcp-fns-etl --registry disqualified --source ./fns_open_data/disqualified.csv --commit

Open Data sources:

mass_addresses → nalog.gov.ru/opendata/7707329152-massreg/
mass_directors → nalog.gov.ru/opendata/7707329152-massuchredt/
disqualified → service.nalog.ru/disqualified.do

By default, the CLI runs in --dry-run (parses and prints a sample); for writing, an explicit --commit is required. Meta-fields <registry>.last_etl, <registry>.last_etl_source, <registry>.last_etl_count are saved automatically — use them for cron monitoring of data freshness.

Development

git clone https://github.com/atomno-labs/mcp-fns-check
cd mcp-fns-check
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate    # Linux/macOS
# .venv/Scripts/activate     # Windows
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest -v --cov=src/atomno_mcp_fns_check

External APIs in tests are never called directly — only via respx (httpx mocking) + local fixtures in tests/fixtures/.

Limitations

No history for directors — FNS does not provide change history via the search API; full history will appear after loading the EGRUL Open Data slice (planned for v0.5+).
FSSP / KAD sometimes block via CAPTCHA / antibot. In this case, the check falls into errors[], and the overall verdict becomes manual_review_required.
Transparent Business only provides the fact ("has debt" / "no reporting"), without the amount. The amount must be requested from the IFNS.

Pro-tier (hosted backend in atomno-mcp-fns-check-server — closed backend) removes these limitations via: 24h Redis cache, proxy rotation to bypass CAPTCHA, full EGRUL Open Data slice, batch checks up to 100 INNs, AI-summary via LLM. The backend itself is not published.

Security and Legal Status

All sources are publicly open FNS data and related registries. Use is legal under Federal Law 149-FZ "On Information".
Legal entities and individual entrepreneurs do not fall under 152-FZ (On Personal Data).
Full names of individual directors are published by the FNS in EGRUL openly; in outbound responses, the director's personal INN is masked (format XXX*****YY).
No write operations to any external API.
No credentials / tokens required — sources are completely public.

Disclaimer

The service is an aggregator and a convenient interface over public FNS data. It is not affiliated with the FNS of Russia, EFRSB, KAD, or FSSP. Use at your own risk.

Information in the service's responses does not replace a full legal or financial assessment. The decision to enter into a contract with a counterparty is yours.

License

MIT — see LICENSE.

Available Tools

8 tools

check_contractorA

Главный тул: полная проверка контрагента по одному идентификатору.

Принимает ИНН (10 цифр — юр.лицо, 12 — ИП/физлицо) или ОГРН (13 цифр — юр.лицо, 15 — ИП). Тип определяется строго по длине и контрольной цифре.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`identifier`	Yes	ИНН (10/12 цифр) или ОГРН/ОГРНИП (13/15 цифр). Пример: '7707083893' (Сбербанк) или '1027700132195'.
`include_extended_risks`	No	Запускать ли 4 расширенные проверки (Прозрачный бизнес, ФССП, КАД). По умолчанию True.
`lawsuits_threshold_rub`	No	Порог фильтрации арбитражных дел в рублях. По умолчанию 1 000 000 ₽ — отсекает мелкие споры.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses identifier validation logic and parameter defaults (extended risks, lawsuit threshold), but does not elaborate on what the 'full check' entails, side effects, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 (three sentences) with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds critical information: identifier formats, validation, and parameter defaults. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the output schema, return values are covered. The description sufficiently explains input validation and parameter behavior for a 3-param tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., API keys) or how this tool relates to siblings beyond being the 'main' one, but overall it is adequate for agent invocation.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains identifier format and validation rules, specifies what extended risks include (4 checks: transparent business, FSSP, KAD), and clarifies the lawsuit threshold filters small disputes. Default values are contextualized.

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 performs a full counterparty check using a single identifier (INN or OGRN). It specifies validation criteria (digit length, control digit) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools (check_inn, check_ogrn) that only handle one identifier type.

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 advises when to use this tool (for a full check) and provides input validation rules. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context of being the 'main tool' implies it is the default for comprehensive checks.

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

check_for_red_flagsA

Агрегированный риск-чек по контрагенту (8 проверок, SPEC §3.5).

Базовые 4 проверки (всегда):

mass_address — массовый юр.адрес ФНС;
mass_director — массовый руководитель (≥10 действующих компаний);
disqualified_director — руководитель в реестре дисквалифицированных;
bankruptcy_records — активные дела в ЕФРСБ.

Расширенные 4 проверки (include_extended=True):

tax_debts — индикатор задолженности по налогам (Прозрачный бизнес);
no_reporting — нет налоговой отчётности > 1 года (Прозрачный бизнес);
enforcement_proceedings — открытые исп.производства (Банк данных ФССП);
active_lawsuits — активные арбитражные дела где контрагент ответчик (КАД), фильтр по сумме иска через lawsuits_threshold_rub.

Любая внешняя проверка может вернуть ошибку (CAPTCHA, 5xx, timeout) — она попадёт в errors[] и не сорвёт остальные проверки.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inn`	Yes	ИНН контрагента (10 или 12 цифр).
`include_extended`	No	запускать ли расширенные 4 проверки. По умолчанию True.
`lawsuits_threshold_rub`	No	порог фильтра арбитражных дел в рублях. По умолчанию 1 000 000 ₽ (отсечь мелкие споры).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses possible errors (CAPTCHA, 5xx, timeout) and that errors are collected without failing other checks. Reveals behavioral traits beyond 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?

Well-structured with bullet points for readability, but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter details, error handling, and references SPEC. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Adequate for a tool with 8 sub-checks and error handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but description adds value by listing the specific checks controlled by include_extended and explaining the lawsuit filter threshold.

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?

Clearly states it performs a aggregated risk check with 8 checks, referencing SPEC §3.5. Differentiates from siblings like check_contractor, check_inn by being comprehensive.

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?

Explains basic vs extended checks with include_extended, and describes error handling. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but context is clear when to use.

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

check_innA

Полная карточка контрагента по ИНН (10 цифр — юр.лицо, 12 — ИП).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inn`	Yes	ИНН контрагента. Пример: '7707083893' (Сбербанк).
`include_extended`	No	зарезервировано для S2.x (Прозрачный бизнес).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output as a 'full card' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input format.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler. It is appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is terse and does not specify what the 'full card' includes, leaving some ambiguity. It adequately covers the basic purpose but could be more comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'inn' parameter by specifying the digit length for legal entities vs IPs. For 'include_extended', it clarifies it is reserved for future use, adding value 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 the tool returns a full counterparty card by INN, and specifies the length distinction (10 digits for legal entities, 12 for individual entrepreneurs). This is a specific verb and resource, and it helps distinguish from sibling tools like check_ogrn (which checks OGRN).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for obtaining a counterparty card based on INN but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_contractor or check_for_red_flags. No when-not conditions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

check_ogrnC

Карточка контрагента по ОГРН (13 цифр) или ОГРНИП (15 цифр).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ogrn`	Yes
`include_extended`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description only states what the tool does, not its side effects or safety profile.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description is minimal; it lacks context about the optional parameter and does not clarify the scope of 'counterparty card' relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'ogrn' parameter by specifying digit length (13 or 15). However, it does not mention the 'include_extended' parameter, leaving it unexplained.

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?

The description clearly states it returns a counterparty card by OGRN/OGRNIP, distinguishing it from siblings like check_inn which uses a different identifier. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the card contains, preventing a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_inn or check_contractor. The description only implies usage when an OGRN is available.

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

get_directors_historyA

История смены руководителей и учредителей по ИНН.

На стадии S3 возвращает только текущего руководителя из egrul.nalog.ru плюс предупреждение о неполноте данных. Полная история (с датами назначения/увольнения) появится на стадии S5 после загрузки Open Data slice ЕГРЮЛ.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inn`	Yes	ИНН контрагента (10 или 12 цифр).
`depth_years`	No	на S3 не используется (история пока без дат).
`include_founders`	No	на S3 не используется (ЕГРЮЛ-search не отдаёт учредителей).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses important behavioral traits: returns only current director at S3 with data incompleteness warning, and full history only at S5. Details about parameter non-usage at S3 add transparency. Doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but given no annotations, this is good.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; each sentence provides distinct, necessary information (purpose, stage behavior, parameter notes).

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 3 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers stage-dependent behavior and parameter constraints. It doesn't detail output schema, but that's covered by the output schema itself. Sufficient for the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by noting that depth_years and include_founders are not effective at S3. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'История смены руководителей и учредителей по ИНН' (History of changes of directors and founders by TIN), specifying the verb (get history) and resource (by TIN). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_inn or get_legal_status.

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 stage-specific behavior: at S3 returns only current director with a warning, full history at S5. Also explains that depth_years and include_founders are not used at S3. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, it gives clear usage context.

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

get_legal_statusB

Текущий жизненный статус: active / liquidating / bankruptcy / liquidated / reorganizing / excluded_inactive.

Минимум один из inn или ogrn обязателен.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inn`	No
`ogrn`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists possible output values, which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. There is no indication of error behavior if required parameters are missing.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence presents the output values upfront, and the second provides a critical usage requirement. No extraneous information is included.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the output schema exists (context signals indicate it), the description does not leverage or reference it. It explains the return values but omits context about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how this tool fits into a workflow alongside siblings. The missing enforcement of the required parameter in the schema adds ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds that at least one parameter is required, without explaining what 'inn' and 'ogrn' represent, their formats, or constraints. This minimal addition does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The tool name 'get_legal_status' combined with the description clearly indicates that the tool retrieves the current legal status from a list of enumerated values (active, liquidating, etc.). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'check_inn' and 'check_ogrn' which likely validate identifiers, and 'get_directors_history' which retrieves different data. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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 states that at least one of 'inn' or 'ogrn' is required, which provides a key usage constraint. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_inn' or 'check_for_red_flags'. The guideline is present but incomplete.

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

get_okvedsC

Перечень кодов ОКВЭД основной + дополнительные с расшифровкой по справочнику ОКВЭД-2.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inn`	No
`ogrn`	No
`include_history`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but omits essential information about inputs and usage. It is underspecified for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of param documentation and annotations, the description is insufficient. The output schema exists but the description does not cover input semantics or invocation requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of any parameter (inn, ogrn, include_history). The agent cannot infer how to specify input correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a list of OKVED codes with interpretations. However, it does not specify that the user must provide either INN or OGRN as input, which is crucial for clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_inn or get_directors_history. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

pingA

Диагностический тул: проверяет, что сервер запущен и доступен.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool performs a read-only check without side effects. It is adequate for a ping tool; additional details like return type are covered by the output schema.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose, efficient and structured.

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 (no parameters, no side effects), the description is complete. Output schema exists to explain return values, so no further description needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 is a diagnostic tool that checks server availability, using specific verb 'проверяет' and resource 'сервер'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on business data.

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 implies usage for verifying server connectivity, which is distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a simple diagnostic tool.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of contractor verification: comprehensive checks by identifier, risk flags, specific identifier lookups, director history, legal status, OKVED codes, and a diagnostic ping. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb prefixes (check_, get_, ping). Minor deviation with 'check_for_red_flags' using 'for', but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Russian contractor verification, covering all essential operations without being excessive or too sparse.

Completeness4/5

Covers core lifecycle: identifier validation, comprehensive checks, risk assessment, director history, legal status, and OKVED codes. Minor gaps like batch operations, but the main workflows are complete.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

ahel
io.ahel
Hosted MCP server for real-world data: business registries, sanctions, companies, domains, crypto.
Government Data Cryptocurrency Open Data
2
B2B Lead Enrichment A
io.github.Diego-Costa-Tech
Remote MCP server to enrich company profiles with structured B2B data and confidence scores.
Customer Data Platforms CRM
12
RU Books MCP
io.github.books-service
MCP server for Russian books search, details, and recommendation candidates.
Search Art & Culture Entertainment & Media
2
Compabase
io.github.ContentWriterco
MCP server for 3M+ Polish companies — KRS & CEIDG financials, ownership, and industry search.
Government Data Finance Open Data
2

Related MCP Servers

mcp-cbr-rates
Finance Open Data Government Data
atomno-mcp
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Central Bank of Russia (CBR) data for AI agents — daily and historical currency rates, key rate, inflation, and macro statistics. Five typed MCP tools, in-memory TTL cache, MIT-licensed, no API key required.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-14 19:07 UTC)
5
2
MIT
mcp-egrul
Government Data Open Data
atomno-mcp
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
MCP server for the Russian state registries EGRUL (legal entities) and EGRIP (individual entrepreneurs), built on official Federal Tax Service open-data dumps. Self-hosted via local SQLite.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-14 19:07 UTC)
8
2
MIT
@metarebalance/dadata-mcp
Search Location Services
theYahia
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
MCP server that provides 31 tools for the DaData API, enabling address autocomplete, company lookup, bank details, phone/email/passport validation, car recognition, geocoding, and reference directory queries.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-01 16:41 UTC)
31
19
2
MIT
krs-verify
Government Data Open Data Legal & Compliance
apiotrowski-afk
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for verifying Polish business entities from the National Court Register (KRS) and VAT White List. Allows querying by KRS, NIP, or REGON to retrieve official company data including name, address, board, and capital.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-26 16:50 UTC)
Apache 2.0

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/atomno-mcp/mcp-fns-check'

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

atomno-mcp-fns-check

Why

Quick Start

Installation

Verifying Operation

Connecting to MCP Clients

Cursor

Claude Desktop

Claude Code (CLI)

Cline (VS Code)

Tools

Example check_contractor response

Behavior during source failures

Configuration

Local FNS Registries

Development

Limitations

Security and Legal Status

Disclaimer

License

Links

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

Example `check_contractor` response