这是 Mamba Labs 在 Apify 上的 Legal Entity Resolver actor 的 MCP 服务器。
给它一个公司域名，它会返回其背后的注册法律实体：法定名称、公司编号、司法管辖区、状态、LEI 和增值税号。每个域名一行扁平数据，共 24 个字段，可直接用于 Clay 或 CRM。
npx -y @mambalabsdev/mcp-legal-entity-resolver{
"mcpServers": {
"mamba-legal-entity-resolver": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@mambalabsdev/mcp-legal-entity-resolver"],
"env": { "APIFY_TOKEN": "your-apify-token" }
}
}
}在 console.apify.com/account/integrations 获取 Apify token。
Related MCP server: Workplace Program Detector MCP Server
resolve_legal_entity输入公司域名，输出其背后的注册法律实体。
输入 | 类型 | 必填 | 备注 |
| string | 是 | 单个公司域名，例如 monzo.com。协议和路径会被去除。 |
| string | 否 | 跳过域名查找，直接使用此名称查询注册处。当你已经拥有法定名称，只想要注册记录时使用。 |
| string | 否 | ISO-2 国家代码。 |
| enum | 否 |
|
| boolean | 否 | 将公司自身页面上找到的任何增值税号通过欧盟 VIES 服务进行验证，并返回 VIES 持有的名称，作为与注册名称的交叉核对。默认值为 |
| enum | 否 |
|
注册处搜索接口是模糊的，它们总会返回一些内容。直接采用排名第一的搜索结果，往往得到的是一串看似可信实则错误的公司编号。该 actor 仅在规范化后法定名称完全一致时才接受匹配，这就是为什么大约 10 个域名中有 6 个能解析成功，而不是 10 个全部成功，也是为什么这 6 个结果值得采取行动。
在对匹配结果采取行动之前，请阅读 match_method、match_confidence 和 rejected_candidates。fuzzy 严格度是一种研究模式：在大多数域名上，它都会给你一个看似可信实则错误的公司。
会查询三个注册处：UK Companies House、GLEIF 和 SEC EDGAR。
按每个已解析的域名收费，外加少量 actor 启动费。缓存结果的有效期为：已解析的公司 90 天，null 7 天。
定价见 actor 的 Apify 页面。运行此服务器会消耗 Apify 积分。
它是 Apify actor 的轻量客户端。它透传你的输入，并原样返回 actor 的输出。上述所有行为都存在于 actor 中，而不是这里。
这不是公司数据库，也不是信用或风险产品。它不会对公司评分、评级，也不会告诉你是否应与它们交易。它只回答一个问题：这个域名背后是哪个注册法律实体。
错误会被明确暴露，绝不会被吞掉。无效输入、无效 token、余额耗尽、超时，或运行返回的不是数据集，所有这些都会以明确的工具错误形式返回，而不是空结果。
该 actor 位于 Apify Store。此包装器采用 MIT 许可证。
由 Mamba Labs 构建。
Give it a company domain and it returns the registered legal entity behind it: legal name, company number, jurisdiction, status, entity type, LEI and VAT number, as one flat row with a full audit trail of what was rejected and why. Three registers are queried: UK Companies House, GLEIF and SEC EDGAR. Register search endpoints are fuzzy and always return something, so by default a record is accepted only when the normalized legal names are identical. That is why roughly 6 domains in 10 resolve rather than 10 in 10, and why a null here is a trustworthy answer rather than a gap. Read match_method, match_confidence and rejected_candidates before acting on a match. Setting match_strictness to fuzzy will hand you a confidently wrong company on most domains and should be treated as a research mode, not a default. This is not a company database and not a credit or risk product. Requires an APIFY_TOKEN and consumes Apify credits. Read only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A single company domain, for example monzo.com. Protocol and path are stripped. | |
| skipCache | No | false uses the cache: 90 days for a resolved company, 7 days for a null. true forces a fresh look. Default: "false". | |
| validate_vat | No | Runs any VAT number found on the company's own pages through the EU VIES service and returns the name VIES holds for it, as a cross-check against the register name. Default: true. | |
| max_charge_usd | No | Optional spending cap for this call, in USD, passed to the actor as max_charge_usd. The run stops before any charge that would take it past this amount and keeps every row already charged. Leave empty to rely only on the maximum charge per run set on your Apify account. | |
| legal_name_hint | No | Skips the domain lookup and goes straight to the registers with this name. Use it when you already have the legal name and just want the register record. | |
| match_strictness | No | exact accepts a register record only when the normalized legal names are equal, which is the default and the recommendation. fuzzy returns the best scoring candidate with a confidence below 100 and a warning in rejected_candidates. Register search is fuzzy and always returns something, so fuzzy mode will hand you a confidently wrong company on most domains. Default: "exact". | |
| jurisdiction_hint | No | ISO-2 country code. GB or UK asks Companies House and GLEIF and returns a Companies House number. US asks GLEIF and SEC EDGAR. FR asks the French Sirene register and returns a SIREN. NO asks the Norwegian Brreg register and returns an organisasjonsnummer. Any other code asks GLEIF alone rather than guessing at a register with no adapter. Leave empty to query all five. Narrowing cuts latency, and registers_queried on the row records which were actually asked, so a null is never ambiguous. | |
| sec_requester_name | Yes | Required. Your own name or your company's name. The SEC requires every automated request to EDGAR to identify the requester by name and email, and the actor sends yours, never a default. | |
| sec_requester_email | Yes | Required. Your own working email address. Sent to the SEC with your name in the User-Agent of each EDGAR request, in the form the SEC asks for. Nothing else uses it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, which is surprisingly defensive for a lookup; the description resolves the ambiguity by stating 'Read only' and by disclosing that it consumes Apify credits and requires an APIFY_TOKEN. It goes well beyond annotations with the 6-in-10 resolution rate, the always-returns-something register behavior, the audit trail of rejections, and the fields to read before acting. This is rich behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core contract (domain in, flat row out) then layers warnings. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only cost is that the match_method/match_confidence warning and the fuzzy warning slightly overlap.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the return shape (flat row with named fields), failure semantics (nulls are meaningful), cost/auth requirements, and the caveats needed to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains why match_strictness=fuzzy produces confidently wrong results, the default cache semantics for skipCache, and how jurisdiction_hint trades coverage for latency. The legal_name_hint alternative path is only lightly touched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise verb+resource: given a domain, it returns the registered legal entity behind it, and it enumerates the returned fields. It also draws explicit negative boundaries ('not a company database and not a credit or risk product') that no sibling tool supplies. There are no siblings, but the purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear conditions for the main behavior choice: default exact matching vs fuzzy mode, and warns fuzzy is a research mode, not a default. It also explains the null-is-trustworthy framing. It stops short of stating prerequisites like when a legal_name_hint is preferable, but the core guidance is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0resolve_legal_entity6 fields changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / jurisdiction_hint / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO-2 country code, for example GB or US. Narrows which registers are queried and cuts latency. Leave empty to query every register."New value: +"ISO-2 country code. GB or UK asks Companies House and GLEIF and returns a Companies House number. US asks GLEIF and SEC EDGAR. FR asks the French Sirene register and returns a SIREN. NO asks the Norwegian Brreg register and returns an organisasjonsnummer. Any other code asks GLEIF alone rather than guessing at a register with no adapter. Leave empty to query all five. Narrowing cuts latency, and registers_queried on the row records which were actually asked, so a null is never ambiguous."Input schema / properties / max_charge_usdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional spending cap for this call, in USD, passed to the actor as max_charge_usd. The run stops before any charge that would take it past this amount and keeps every row already charged. Leave empty to rely only on the maximum charge per run set on your Apify account.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / sec_requester_emailAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Required. Your own working email address. Sent to the SEC with your name in the User-Agent of each EDGAR request, in the form the SEC asks for. Nothing else uses it.",
+ "format": "email",
+ "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sec_requester_nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Required. Your own name or your company's name. The SEC requires every automated request to EDGAR to identify the requester by name and email, and the actor sends yours, never a default.",
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "domain"
-]New value: +[
+ "sec_requester_name",
+ "sec_requester_email",
+ "domain"
+]v1.0.0resolve_legal_entityScored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is nothing to confuse it with. Its purpose (domain → registered legal entity) is stated unambiguously, including what it does not do (not a company database, not a risk product).
A single tool named resolve_legal_entity follows a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern. There is no competing convention to clash with it.
The server is deliberately scoped to one operation, and that operation is substantive (multi-register lookup with audit trail). Still, a single tool is thin for a server surface and forces any multi-domain or reverse-lookup workflow to be handled outside it.
The core read path is well covered: resolution, confidence/method metadata, rejected candidates, and multiple registers. Gaps are minor — no batch resolution of many domains and no reverse lookup (name/company number → domain), which an agent would have to loop around.
CompanyLens is a remote MCP server giving AI agents instant access to official company registry data across 19 jurisdictions in Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Eighteen read-only tools let you search companies and people, look up officers and beneficial owners, map corporate networks through shared directors, screen names against the UK disqualified directors register, find every company at a registered address, and pull filing history — all from a single connector. Visit our website: https://companylens.io
Remote MCP server to enrich company profiles with structured B2B data and confidence scores.
Apify MCP — run web-scraping Actors and fetch their dataset results.
Identity resolution MCP server for phone/email lookups across 31+ services. Global + India coverage.
