kyb-mcp

by iGitScor

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Get dossier

get_dossier

Read-only

Fetch a full dossier and all its notes by dossier ID. Consolidates KYB review data for a company in one response.

Instructions

One dossier with all its notes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dossier_id": "<dossier_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_dossier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dossier_id`	Yes	Dossier id as returned by create_dossier, e.g. 'd_3f9a1c2b7e4d'

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Opaque dossier id, e.g. 'd_3f9a1c2b7e4d'
`notes`	No	Oldest first
`siren`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes
`company_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds a behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the result includes 'all its notes.' The readOnlyHint already covers safety, so the added note-scope detail is useful context. However, it does not disclose any potential edge cases or return characteristics beyond that single trait.

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 five words with no filler, and the key differentiator ('with all its notes') is front-loaded. It is terse but earns its place by adding scope information beyond the tool's name. It could be slightly more explicit, but it is appropriately 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?

For a single-parameter getter with a complete input schema, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the minimal description is largely sufficient. It does not explain the return format, but that is covered by the output schema. The only missing element is explicit comparison with list_dossiers, which is more of a usage-guidance concern.

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 description says nothing about the dossier_id parameter, but the input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear title, description, and an example value. Since the schema fully documents the only parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource—a single dossier—and adds a distinguishing detail: it includes all notes. This separates it from list_dossiers (plural) and from sibling tools targeting other entities like get_company. It relies on the title for the verb 'Get' and doesn't mention lookup by ID, but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The singular wording implies this tool is for fetching one specific dossier, contrasting with list_dossiers, but it does not state when to prefer it or exclude alternatives. There are no direct comparisons or 'use when' instructions.

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

Deploy Server