cz-agents-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.4
Disambiguation4/5
Tools have distinct purposes covering different aspects of Czech company due diligence. Some overlap between `get_dd_report` and `get_risk_score` is clarified by descriptions stating one is full report and the other lightweight. No significant confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., `detect_address_crowding`, `get_dd_report`). Verbs are either 'detect' or 'get', making it predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for Czech company due diligence. It covers risk detection, reports, EU aspects, and timelines without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core due diligence operations: pattern detection, reports, risk scoring, EU parent lookup, timeline, and statutory chain. Missing a direct company search tool, but the domain is well-covered for risk screening. Advanced features are noted as external tools.
Average 4.3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 182 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 3, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds threshold-based risk levels (1-9 normal, 200+ high), giving concrete behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Description is informative but slightly verbose with threshold enumeration. Front-loaded with purpose, but could be more concise while keeping information.
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?
Tool is simple (one param, no output schema). Description sufficiently explains purpose and threshold interpretation. Complete given annotations.
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?
Single parameter 'ico' with schema description 'Czech IČO 7-8 digits'. Description adds no further meaning; schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it detects 'shell-firm hotel' patterns by counting companies sharing the same registered address. Distinguishes from siblings like detect_nominee_director and detect_phoenix.
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?
Implies usage for compliance checks with 'Compliance tier or higher', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor contrasts with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) already indicate the tool is read-only. The description adds valuable context: it returns GLEIF entity data and sanctions screening, includes coverage notes per country, and notes the limitation with SMEs. This supplements annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is concise—three sentences and a note—with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes meaningful information (purpose, input/output, coverage, limitation). Only minor redundancy with schema descriptions prevents a 5.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (two input modes, multiple output types, coverage notes, tier restriction), the description covers what the tool does, its limitations, and input options. It could detail sanctions lists or response format, but it is sufficiently complete given the annotations.
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% with good parameter descriptions. The description's input guidance ('20-char LEI code, or company name + optional country') adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 produces an 'EU Due-Diligence report' for international companies, specifying the input (LEI code or company name) and outputs (GLEIF entity data plus sanctions screening). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dd_report' and 'get_eu_parent' by focusing on EU-specific due-diligence with GLEIF and sanctions.
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 explains when to use the tool (for EU due-diligence with LEI or company name) and notes that SMEs without LEI may not be found, implying an alternative may be needed. It also mentions a tier requirement ('Pro Compliance tier or higher'). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it generates a report with risk scores and sanctions, but no additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. Adequate but not enriched.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the main purpose, then lists content details. Each sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema, but description adequately describes return contents (company facts, statutory body, risk score, red flags). Could mention that it accepts a single IČO per call, but overall complete for a single-input report tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each depth level ('basic' vs 'full') includes (e.g., 'basic = ARES + sanctions only'), which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states 'Generate a complete due-diligence report for a Czech IČO' and lists specific outputs (company facts, statutory body, risk score). It differentiates from sibling tools that are more specialized detection tools (e.g., detect_nominee_director, get_risk_score) by being a holistic report.
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 implies this is for a comprehensive report on a Czech company, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. specialized siblings. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternatives, so it's slightly above average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific behavioral context: data source (ARES data alone), indicators computed, and output structure. No contradictions.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simple input (one parameter), no output schema, and annotations providing readonly/open world, the description fully covers what the tool does, its tier requirement, and points to an alternative for deeper analysis.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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 detects nominee director patterns using 3 surface indicators, and distinguishes it from the richer alternative. The output format (indicator breakdown with riskScore) is specified.
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 mentions the Pro Compliance tier requirement and explicitly directs users to a deeper analysis tool when needed, providing clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by stating it's lightweight and faster. Consistent with read-only nature; no behavioral surprises.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, all information 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, few output fields), the description is complete. No output schema, but listed outputs suffice. Sibling comparison provided.
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?
Single parameter 'ico' with description 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.' Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly describes as lightweight version of get_dd_report, specifies exact output (score, risk level, red flags), and highlights speed advantage. Distinguishes from sibling tool.
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?
Explicitly mentions faster when only a yes/no/maybe screen is needed, implying when to use this over get_dd_report. Provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are supplemented by description noting return format (events[] with riskScore 0-100) and specific event types. No contradictions, but could detail fields beyond riskScore.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences that cover purpose, output, tier requirement, and sibling tool reference.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Mentions return format but lacks details on other fields in events[]. Still sufficient.
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 already fully describes the ico parameter (coverage 100%). Description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing Czech context.
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?
Clearly states it builds a chronologically sorted lifecycle timeline for a Czech company, listing basic events like formation, appointments, etc. Distinguishes from a richer sibling tool.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisite ('Pro Compliance tier or higher') and directly names an alternative tool for enriched timeline: get_risk_timeline_rich.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It explains the heuristic nature, noise for common surnames, and auto-skipping with notes, which annotations do not cover.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by caveats. It uses about five sentences with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing meaning.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (heuristic, noisy, surname-based), the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and alternatives comprehensively. It adequately prepares the agent for expected behavior, even without an output schema.
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 has 100% coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, though it implicitly ties the ICO to surname rarity, which is minor additional context.
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 performs a surname-based heuristic walk through statutory bodies of related Czech companies, specifically for shell-company unwinding with rare surnames. It distinguishes itself from a true UBO source, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use (shell-company unwinding with rare surnames) and when not to use (common surnames like Novák, Zima, Kolář). It provides an alternative (ESM registry) for actual beneficial ownership, giving clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds return type (PhoenixReport with riskScore 0-100) and tier requirement (Pro Compliance tier or higher), adding context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key details.
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?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers indicators, data sources, return type, tier, and alternative tool, making it self-contained.
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?
Only one parameter (ico) with schema description 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.' Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.
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 it detects the phoenix company pattern with specific indicators, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling detect_phoenix_rich tool.
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?
Provides when to use (3 surface indicators from ARES/ISIR) and when not to use (for deep indicators, use detect_phoenix_rich), with explicit alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses two-step lookup process, confidence level, and limitations (SMEs). Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent and description adds valuable context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff, well-structured.
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?
No output schema, but description explains return values (LEI, name, country, confidence) and caveats. Complete for a simple lookup tool.
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 already describes the ico parameter as 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.' Description does not add further semantic meaning beyond that.
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?
Clearly states the tool finds the EU/international parent company for a Czech IČO via ARES and GLEIF, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_statutory_chain.
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?
Provides context that GLEIF covers mid/large firms and SMEs without LEI won't be found, implying when to use. Misses explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cz-agents-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cz-agents-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/martinhavel/cz-agents-mcp'

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