Skip to main content
Glama
robyroro

romania-mcp

by robyroro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Company lookup (ANAF)

company_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up Romanian company status in ANAF's registry by CUI to verify VAT registration, fiscal inactivity, or deregistration before vetting suppliers or clients.

Instructions

Official status of Romanian companies from ANAF's public registry: name, address, registration number (J...), CAEN code, registration date, whether it's deregistered (radiată), VAT registered (and since when), VAT on collection, split VAT, declared fiscally inactive, and in the RO e-Factura registry. Each company comes with a 'warnings' list (deregistered, fiscally inactive, suspended).

Use it to vet suppliers or clients, e.g. checking a list of suppliers for fiscally inactive ones, since buyers generally can't deduct expenses or VAT on their invoices. Only searches by CUI, not by name. CUIs with a wrong control digit are returned under 'invalid' without asking ANAF. ANAF allows about one request per second, so every 100 CUIs take a second. Cached for 6h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cuisYesOne or more CUIs, with or without RO, e.g. ["14399840", "RO18547290"]. Up to 500 in one call.
dateNoCheck the status as it was on this day (YYYY-MM-DD or DD.MM.YYYY), e.g. an invoice date to see if the supplier was VAT registered then. Defaults to today.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: ~1 request/second rate limit with the practical '100 CUIs take a second' translation, 6h caching, local control-digit validation returning invalid CUIs without hitting ANAF, and the semantics of the warnings list.

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?

Front-loads the highest-value information (what registry, what fields) then moves to usage, constraints, and rate limits. The returned-field enumeration is long but each item earns its place since there is no output schema. Minor density cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and warning values, plus rate limits, caching, and edge-case handling — everything an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the CUI-only restriction (no name search) and the purpose of the date parameter (e.g. an invoice date to see whether the supplier was VAT registered then). It stops short of explaining the invalid-CUI return shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — official status of Romanian companies from ANAF's public registry — and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, address, J number, CAEN, VAT status, warnings). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling company_financials, court_cases, or iban_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?

Gives a concrete use case (vetting suppliers/clients, e.g. screening a supplier list for fiscally inactive companies) with the business rationale. It also states a hard constraint: only searches by CUI, not by name. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for other lookup styles, so it falls short of a 5.

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