Apify Public Data & Leads

UK, France and Global Company Registry Search

company_registry_search

Read-only

Search official UK, French, and global GLEIF company registries in one call to verify status, registration, addresses, and ownership for cross-border entity lookup and enrichment.

Instructions

Search UK Companies House, French SIRENE, and the global GLEIF LEI register in one call. Returns normalized company identity, status, registration, address, industry, financial, officer, and ownership fields where available.

Behavioral Transparency:

Execution: Network call executed synchronously in the cloud via Apify Actor 'captainhandsome/company-registry-search'.
Side Effects: Creates a billed Actor run and dataset on your Apify account; queries official public company registers.
Authentication: Requires APIFY_TOKEN; no registry credential is required for normal bounded searches.
Latency & Limits: Typical runs take 10-60 seconds; detail enrichment is slower; timeout capped at 120 seconds.

Usage Guidelines:

When to use: Use for cross-border company lookup, entity resolution, status verification, LEI matching, and company enrichment across the UK, France, and GLEIF.
When NOT to use: Do not use for US Secretary of State records, contractor licences, sanctions screening, or investment advice.
Named alternatives: Use 'us_business_entity_search' for Florida, Alabama, and Wisconsin; 'gleif_lei_search' for a focused LEI lookup; or 'french_company_search' for France-only searches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sources`	No	Official registries to search.
`active_only`	No	Exclude dissolved, ceased, and lapsed entities.
`max_results`	No	Maximum records returned and billed across all queries and registries.
`search_queries`	Yes	One or more full or partial company names.
`include_details`	No	Add source-specific detail such as UK officers and filings or GLEIF parent relationships.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run`	No
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses execution style (synchronous cloud call via Apify Actor), side effects (billed Actor run and dataset), authentication requirements (APIFY_TOKEN), and latency bounds (10-60 seconds, 120-second timeout). This goes well beyond the annotations and adds important operational context.

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 organized into labeled sections with front-loaded purpose. Each paragraph adds distinct value—scope, behavior, cost/auth, latency, usage—without repeating schema content or padding.

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 multi-registry tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, exclusions, alternatives, authentication, cost, latency, and behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search UK Companies House, French SIRENE, and the global GLEIF LEI register in one call.' It then lists the normalized fields returned, making the tool's scope concrete and clearly distinct from single-country siblings.

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?

An explicit 'Usage Guidelines' section provides when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternatives: us_business_entity_search, gleif_lei_search, and french_company_search. This gives an agent precise routing criteria without inferring from context.

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

Deploy Server