A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceScreen names against consolidated OFAC, EU, UK, and UN sanctions lists and resolve legal entities via GLEIF, with offline fuzzy matching.
284
1
Apache 2.0
find-missing
Server Details
Checks if an LEI-holding entity has a match in the national registry its jurisdiction expects.
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- NKO-LLC-TECH/nko
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
2 toolsaward_stateAInspect
Given a real, awarded EU public-procurement notice (TED), resolve the winning company's real commercial-registry status TODAY (active, dissolved, insolvency, etc.) - answers "is the company that won this public contract still alive?".
Args:
notice_id: the TED publication-number of an AWARD notice (e.g.
"15-2026") - must be a can-standard/can-social/can-desw/
can-defence notice with a chosen winner, not the original
contract notice (cn-standard).
api_key: optional - a free key obtained from POST
https://api.nkodatalabs.com/v0/keys. Without one, this call
still works within a free anonymous trial (5 calls/day per
caller IP) - see the response's "trial" field.
Coverage today (published honestly, not hidden): Spain and France
resolve live via each country's own commercial registry. UK and
Hungary are not resolvable yet - UK needs a free Companies House API
key not yet configured on this service, Hungary has no free public
registry API at all. Natural-person awardees are excluded, never
resolved as a company.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| notice_id | Yes |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally well. It honestly discloses coverage limitations (Spain and France only, UK and Hungary unresolvable), anonymous-trial rate limits, auth requirements, and the exclusion of natural persons. It even flags that coverage is published honestly rather than hidden.
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 appropriately structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains arguments, then coverage limitations. Every section adds necessary information and no sentence is wasted. It is long but only because the tool genuinely has several non-obvious constraints.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a niche domain, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input format, auth, trial limits, country support, known gaps, and excluded cases, and it indicates the kind of result (active, dissolved, insolvency, etc.) without needing a full return schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does. notice_id is defined with an example, the required notice type, and exclusions; api_key is explained with where to get it and the fallback anonymous behavior. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: given an awarded EU TED notice, resolve the winning company's current commercial-registry status. It is specific about the verb, resource, and the core question it answers, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool find_missing.
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 gives clear usage boundaries: the input must be an AWARD notice, not the original contract notice, and natural-person awardees are excluded. It also explains which countries are currently supported. However, it never explicitly mentions when to choose this tool over find_missing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_missingAInspect
Query whether an entity with a real LEI has a high-confidence match in the national commercial registry its declared jurisdiction would expect.
Args:
identifier_type: one of "lei", "company_number", "name".
identifier: the LEI, registration number, or legal name to look up.
api_key: optional - a free key obtained from POST
https://api.nkodatalabs.com/v0/keys. Without one, this call
still works within a free anonymous trial (5 calls/day per
caller IP) - see the response's "trial" field.
jurisdiction: optional ISO-3166 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "GB", "ES", "FR").
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| identifier_type | Yes |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose rate-limit behavior (5 calls/day trial), that an api_key can be obtained via POST, and a response field ('trial'). However, it does not state side effects (though 'query' implies read-only), error/edge-case behavior, or response format beyond the trial field. It adds useful behavior but is not comprehensive.
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 economical: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. No redundant content. The purpose sentence is slightly awkward and could be rephrased more directly, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
Input semantics are fully covered, and the purpose sentence implies the core result (whether a high-confidence match exists). However, with no output schema, the description does not describe the response shape or how to interpret match results beyond the trial field, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args list is the only documentation. It clearly explains all four parameters: identifier_type with allowed values, identifier with definition, api_key with acquisition and trial behavior, and jurisdiction with ISO-3166 format and examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description states a specific action – query whether an entity has a high-confidence registry match – identifying the resource (national commercial registry) and a unique purpose. The phrasing 'real LEI' and 'its declared jurisdiction would expect' is slightly convoluted, but the intent is clear; there are no siblings to differentiate from.
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?
The description establishes a clear context for use (checking registry match completeness) and provides operational guidance about the optional api_key and trial limits, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With no sibling tools, a moderate score is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Added
award_state
1 tool update
- Changed
find_missing4 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / api_key / anyOfAdded value: +[ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +] - added
Input schema / properties / api_key / defaultAdded value: +null - removed
Input schema / properties / api_key / typeRemoved value: -"string" - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "identifier_type", - "identifier", - "api_key" -]New value: +[ + "identifier_type", + "identifier" +]
1 tool update
- First observed
find_missing
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Verify a company on official registries (GLEIF LEI, SEC EDGAR), screen sanctions. Free.
Screen names against OFAC, EU, UK, UN sanctions lists; resolve entities via GLEIF. Screening aid.
Verify ANZ businesses against government registers. Surfaces cross-jurisdictional findings.
Checks whether a name is on the FinCEN (US financial crimes) lists, for compliance and AML due dilig
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides access to Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) data from GLEIF, enabling queries about legal entities and their identifiers via natural language.6MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for GLEIF LEI (Legal Entity Identifier) database access. Look up, validate, and search legal entities and their relationships in the global LEI system.126MIT
BizVerify MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to verify and search business entities across US state and international company registries, providing real-time confirmation of legal existence, status, and filings.9MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
award_state and find_missing are functionally distinct: one takes a TED award notice and resolves the winner's current registry status, while the other takes an LEI/company identifier and checks for a registry match. However, both revolve around commercial-registry existence/status, and the name 'award_state' could be misread as tender status rather than company status.
Naming Consistency2/5
Both names use snake_case, but there is no consistent grammatical pattern: 'award_state' is a noun-noun phrase while 'find_missing' is a verb phrase. The names also do not clearly signal their actual operations, making the convention feel disjointed.
Tool Count3/5
Two tools is borderline for a server, but it is defensible for a very narrow due-diligence/registry-check purpose. The set is not padded, but it feels thin compared to the breadth of registry and procurement scenarios it touches.
Completeness3/5
The two tools cover complementary registry checks, but there are notable gaps: there is no way to query a company's current status directly by identifier, no notice-discovery operations, and explicit coverage gaps for UK and Hungary. Core workflows are possible, but some users will hit dead ends.