companies-house-screening-mcp

Get insolvency history

get_insolvency

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a company's insolvency history by company number for credit or supplier risk assessments. Returns proceeding type, key dates, and appointed practitioners.

Instructions

Insolvency cases registered against a company: the type of proceeding, its key dates, and the insolvency practitioners appointed. Call it when get_company reports has_insolvency_history, or as part of a credit or supplier risk check. A company with no insolvency history returns a not-found error rather than an empty list, which is a quirk of the API and means exactly what it sounds like. Needs a company number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`verbose`	No	Also return the untouched Companies House payload under `raw`, alongside the shaped result. Roughly two and a half times the size; use it only when a field you need is missing from the shaped result.
`company_number`	Yes	Eight-character Companies House number, such as 00000006 or SC123456. Leading zeros may be omitted. This tool does not accept a company name — call find_company first if that is all you have.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	The untouched Companies House payload. Present only when verbose was true.
`meta`	Yes	Provenance and budget for this answer.
`cases`	Yes
`case_count`	Yes
`company_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Sep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / licence / description

Previous value: -"Companies House data is Open Government Licence v3.0."New value: +"OGL v3.0 applies to eligible public-sector information. Personal data and other OGL exclusions are not licensed by this label; applicable data-protection duties still apply."

First observedv0.2.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses a genuinely surprising API quirk: no history yields a not-found error rather than an empty list. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting an error as a failure of the tool itself.

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 tight sentences: what the tool returns, when to use it, and the one edge case an agent must know. Every sentence earns its place and important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not re-specify return fields. It covers purpose, trigger, error behavior, and required input, and annotations cover safety, making this complete for reliable invocation.

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 both company_number and verbose are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level 'Needs a company number' restatement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (insolvency cases registered against a company) and the meaningful output (proceeding type, key dates, practitioners). It also ties it to get_company's has_insolvency_history flag, which differentiates it from sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: call it when get_company reports has_insolvency_history or as part of a credit/supplier risk check. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but there is no dedicated sibling insolvency tool, and 'Needs a company number' clarifies a prerequisite.

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

Deploy Server