open-data-mcp

dataandbeyond--eu-company-verify

Read-only

Verify EU VAT numbers in VIES and retrieve company LEI and parent company data from GLEIF in one call; also accepts LEI codes or company names.

Instructions

Check an EU VAT number in VIES and find the company LEI and parent companies in GLEIF, in one call. Also accepts an LEI or a company name. Calls official VIES and GLEIF APIs directly.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dataandbeyond--eu-company-verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`queries`	No	VAT numbers (e.g. DK10150817, DE811115368), LEI codes, or company names. Example values: ["DK24256790","Novo Nordisk"]
`maxItems`	No	Max items. Example values: 1000
`waitSecs`	No	Max seconds (0–45, default 30) to cap the wait for the Actor run to reach terminal state. For long-running Actors the response returns at the cap with the current run status; follow `nextStep` to poll via get-actor-run. Set to 0 to fire-and-forget.
`defaultCountry`	No	Two-letter EU code used when a VAT number has no country prefix (e.g. DK).
`includeParents`	No	Look up direct and ultimate parent in GLEIF (Level 2). Example values: true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful provenance – live calls to official VIES and GLEIF APIs – but says nothing about rate limits, what happens on an invalid VAT number, or what the combined result contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, then alternate inputs, then data provenance. Efficient, with only slight redundancy in the final API-provenance sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back (VAT validity, LEI code, parent entities) but only alludes to it via "find the company LEI and parent companies." Adequate for calling the tool, thin for interpreting results.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the accepted VAT/LEI/name formats. The description's "also accepts an LEI or a company name" merely restates what queries already declares, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource – verify an EU VAT number in VIES and resolve LEI/parents in GLEIF – plus the alternate input types. It is distinguishable from siblings like france-company-search or nordic-company-registry, though the difference (EU-wide VIES/GLEIF vs national registries) is only implied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"In one call" and "also accepts an LEI or a company name" give implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance (e.g. versus the France or Nordic registry tools).

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

Deploy Server