Skip to main content
Glama

ENTIA Entity Verification

by io.github.entia-systems-core

Entity Lookup

entity_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up any business entity by name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, or LEI. Free callers receive a trace-level identity preview; authenticated callers receive the full paid dossier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoCompany name, CIF/NIF (B82846825), EU VAT (ESB82846825), or LEI (20 chars)
nameNoAlias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `name`.
queryNoAlias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `query`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_metaNo
foundNoTrue only when an identity anchor corroborated the query
queryNo
entityNoVerified identity: legal name, tax id, address, sector
integrityNoTamper-evidence MAC. Not an electronic signature
error_codeNo
provenanceNoPublisher and data sources of this answer
data_coverageNoWhich sources answered and which did not
registry_dataNoOfficial registry payload (BORME/GLEIF/VIES/native)
coherence_errorsNo
economic_profileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / integrity
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tamper-evidence MAC. Not an electronic signature",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / legal_framework
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provenance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Publisher and data sources of this answer",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / signature
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Provenance signature of this answer",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Identity resolution result. `found` is fail-closed: false means no identity anchor was corroborated, not 'try again'.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "coherence_errors": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "data_coverage": {
+      "description": "Which sources answered and which did not",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "economic_profile": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "entity": {
+      "description": "Verified identity: legal name, tax id, address, sector",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error_code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "description": "True only when an identity anchor corroborated the query",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "legal_framework": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "registry_data": {
+      "description": "Official registry payload (BORME/GLEIF/VIES/native)",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "signature": {
+      "description": "Provenance signature of this answer",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `name`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `q` — accepted for compatibility with clients that send `query`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "q"
-]New value: +[]
  4. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Previous value: -"Company name, CIF/NIF (e.g. B82846825), EU VAT ID (e.g. ESB82846825), or LEI code (20 chars). The API auto-detects the input type."New value: +"Company name, CIF/NIF (B82846825), EU VAT (ESB82846825), or LEI (20 chars)"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing an auth-dependent output split: free callers get a trace-level preview, while authenticated callers get the full paid dossier. This is useful behavioral context that annotations do not capture.

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 with no filler: the first states the core purpose and accepted identifiers, and the second adds the key access-level behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with three optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be looked up and what different callers receive. It does not specify behavior when no query parameter is supplied, but the output schema and annotations reduce the impact of that gap.

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%; q, name, and query are each documented in the schema, including alias relationships. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('look up'), a resource ('business entity'), and the accepted identifier types (name, CIF/NIF, EU VAT, LEI). It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_entities or get_full_dossier.

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 identifier list and 'look up any business entity' imply when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. With sibling tools such as verify_vat, search_entities, and get_full_dossier, the routing decision is left to inference.

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

All ENTIA Entity Verification toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but get_entia_home and get_entity_home_projection are near-duplicates representing the same Entia Home concept from slightly different technical angles. entity_lookup and get_full_dossier also overlap since entity_lookup already mentions returning the full paid dossier, and get_competitors is a specialized variant of search_entities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes get_* names with bare action names like entity_lookup, search_entities, verify_vat, and professional_lookup, so there is no single consistent verb_noun pattern. The names are still readable and somewhat predictable, but the inconsistency is noticeable and get_entia_home vs get_entity_home_projection adds confusion.

Tool Count4/5

Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for an entity-verification server, and most tools serve a distinct due-diligence purpose. However, a few tools are auxiliary or redundant: get_showcase and get_platform_stats are exploratory rather than core verification, and the two Entia Home retrieval tools could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core verification lifecycle well: entity lookup by identifiers, flexible search, VAT validation, professional verification, competitor discovery, full dossiers, and risk auditing. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to fetch a raw single source like VIES or BORME independently and no entity relationship/ownership endpoint, but these are workable for typical KYB workflows.

Resources