Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
register-mcp

register-mcp

by malkreide
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

zefix_verify_company

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify company registration and active status in the Swiss Commercial Register. Get legal form, location, and similar-name warnings for safe contracting, procurement, or subsidy decisions.

Instructions

Schnell-Verifikation: Ist ein Unternehmen im Handelsregister eingetragen und aktiv?

Gibt eine klare Ja/Nein-Antwort plus Basisdetails zurück. Ideal als erster Check vor Vertragsabschlüssen, Beschaffungen oder Subventionsvergaben.

Stellt fest:

  • Ist die Firma im Handelsregister eingetragen?

  • Ist sie aktiv (EXISTIEREND) oder gelöscht?

  • Welche Rechtsform hat sie?

  • Wo ist sie domiziliert?

  • Gibt es mehrere ähnliche Firmen (Verwechslungsgefahr)?

Args: params (VerifyCompanyInput): - name (str): Firmenname (mind. 3 Zeichen) - canton (Optional[str]): Kantonskürzel zur Eingrenzung

Returns: str: Verifizierungsergebnis mit Status, Rechtsform, Sitz und Warnungen.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "zefix_verify_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by listing what the tool checks (registration, status, legal form, domicile, similar companies) and that it returns a yes/no answer plus basic details. This aligns with annotations and adds value beyond them.

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, starting with the core question, followed by a clear list of checks and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and a likely output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage scenario, checks performed, and parameter hints. It could mention the output format more explicitly, but the return value description suffices.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters in English, while the tool description echoes them in German. Although schema description coverage is reported as 0% (possibly a context issue), the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. It provides German translations and constraints (min 3 chars for name) but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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's purpose: a quick verification of whether a company is registered and active in the commercial register, returning a yes/no answer and basic details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zefix_search_companies' or 'zefix_get_company' by emphasizing its speed and focus on a binary check.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool as a first check before contracts, procurement, or subsidies, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies it is for quick checks rather than detailed lookups.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools