Skip to main content
Glama
kaylum54

companies-house-screening-mcp

by kaylum54

Get persons with significant control

get_psc
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the people and entities with significant control over a UK company, including shareholding bands and how control is exercised. Use this to answer ownership and beneficial owner questions.

Instructions

Who OWNS a company. Use this for any question about ownership, shareholders, beneficial owners or who is ultimately behind a business — the company profile does not carry ownership and get_company will not answer it. Returns each person or entity with significant control: how much they own (shareholding band), how that control is held (voting rights, right to appoint directors), and whether the interest is current or ceased. Ownership is often not the same as the directors, so this is a different question from get_officers. Where a company cannot identify a controller it files a statement instead of a person, and that statement is returned in the name field. Needs a company number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoAlso 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.
start_indexNoZero-based offset into the full result set. Use pagination.has_more to decide.
company_numberYesEight-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.
items_per_pageNoHow many records to return. Defaults to the API default; the maximum is 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoThe untouched Companies House payload. Present only when verbose was true.
metaYesProvenance and budget for this answer.
paginationYesWhere this page sits in the full result set.
controllersYes
active_countNo
ceased_countNo
company_numberYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses what the result contains: shareholding band, control method, and whether interest is current or ceased. It also reveals an important edge behavior — when a company cannot identify a controller, a statement is returned in the name field.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place: usage guidance, output content, sibling differentiation, and the controller-statement edge case. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 complex ownership tool, the description covers the important conceptual distinctions, edge cases, and return semantics. An output schema exists, so the absence of detailed field-level listings is not a gap, and the description adds enough context for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a thorough description, including company-number format, leading zeros, pagination semantics, and verbose behavior. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that a company number is required, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Who OWNS a company' and precisely names the resource: persons with significant control. It clearly differentiates itself from get_officers ('different question') and get_company ('will not answer it'), so an agent can select it correctly among 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for any ownership, shareholder, beneficial owner, or ultimate-controller question, and excludes the main alternatives by noting get_company does not carry ownership and get_officers addresses a different question. It also states the hard requirement for a company number.

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

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/kaylum54/companies-house-screening-mcp'

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