UK Due Diligence

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search Disqualified Directors

disqualified_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search UK director disqualification records by person's name to check if they are banned from acting as a company director; returns dates, periods, and officer IDs.

Instructions

Check whether a named individual is banned from acting as a UK company director.

Use this tool when asked to check disqualified, banned, or barred directors. Query must be an individual's name (e.g. "Richard Howson") — NOT a company name, which always returns zero results.

Returns names, dates of birth, disqualification period snippets, and officer IDs that can be used with disqualified_profile for full details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Alias for query — the person's name.
`query`	No	Person's name to search for, e.g. query='Richard Howson'. NOT a company name.
`start_index`	No	Pagination offset (0-based). Default 0.
`items_per_page`	No	Results per page (max 100). Default 20.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No	Matching disqualified officer records.
`query`	Yes	Search query applied.
`has_more`	Yes	True if more items may exist beyond this page. Re-call with start_index=start_index+items_per_page to continue.
`returned`	Yes	Items actually returned on this page.
`start_index`	Yes	Pagination offset for this page.
`total_results`	Yes	Total matching records upstream at Companies House.
`items_per_page`	Yes	Page size requested.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.1.1Jul 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / name

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 2,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Alias for query — the person's name."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / query / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / default
```
Added value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Name of the person to search for"New value: +"Person's name to search for, e.g. query='Richard Howson'. NOT a company name."

removedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Removed value: -200
```
removedInput schema / properties / query / minLength
```
Removed value: -2
```
removedInput schema / properties / query / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "query"
-]
```

Addedv1.0.6May 2, 2026
Removedv1.0.1May 1, 2026
First observedv1.0.0Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral context beyond that: the company name query returns zero results (a known pitfall), and it reveals the return shape (names, DOBs, snippets, officer IDs) plus a pointer to disqualified_profile for follow-up. This exceeds the annotation baseline without being exhaustive about rate limits or matching nuances.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, critical restriction, and return value summary. Front-loaded with the most important info, no redundancy or fluff. Perfectly sized for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, a key anti-pattern, and a related-tool pointer. Pagination and limits are already captured in the schema, so nothing critical is missing. The context is complete for reliable invocation.

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%: each parameter has a meaningful description, including the alias relationship between 'name' and 'query' and clarifying 'NOT a company name.' The tool description reinforces this but doesn't introduce new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a named individual is banned from acting as a UK company director.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like company_search (which searches companies) and disqualified_profile (which retrieves full details for an identified officer). The scope is precise and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when asked to check disqualified, banned, or barred directors.' It also warns against a common mistake: 'Query must be an individual's name — NOT a company name, which always returns zero results.' This exclusion is valuable and no other tool is suggested for this purpose, making the guidance direct and actionable.

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

Deploy Server