get_sub_entityFull record for one sub-entity/branch (underenhet) by 9-digit org number. e.g. {orgnr:"973861883"} (Equinor ASA AVD CCB SOTRA).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgnr | Yes | 9-digit sub-entity org number, e.g. "973861883". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "orgnr": "973861883"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the 'full record' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response structure, potential errors, or rate limits. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a practical example, containing no redundant information. Every element (purpose, input format, example) earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input and the goal ('full record') but does not detail what the full record contains or handle edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a score of 4 is justified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'orgnr' parameter with 100% coverage, including the 9-digit format and an example. The description adds an additional example but no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is retained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the full record for a single sub-entity/branch by its 9-digit org number. It includes a concrete example (Equinor ASA AVD CCB SOTRA) that reinforces the specific resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_entity (which targets main entities) and search_sub_entities (which searches rather than retrieves a single record).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this when you have a specific 9-digit sub-entity org number and need the full record. It implies the tool is for exact lookups rather than searches, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The example further clarifies the expected input format and usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and multiple other tools overlap heavily: ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, discover_tools/suggest_questions, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges/polymarket_edge_tracker all sit in nearly the same functional space. An agent would struggle to reliably select the right tool among these clusters.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: get_/search_ verbs coexist with product-prefixed names (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, forget). The conventions are not chaotic, but they are not predictable enough for a coherent set.
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Brreg No,' which should be a focused Norwegian business-registry lookup server. Only a handful of tools actually target Brreg (search_entities, get_entity, get_accounts, get_roles, get_sub_entity, search_sub_entities); the rest are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/meta tools that drown out the core purpose.
The core Brreg read surface is present: entity search/lookup, sub-entities, financial accounts, and roles. However, there is no Brreg change/update feed or document-level coverage, and the unrelated generic research tools do not fill that gap. For a registry-focused server, the coverage is workable but not complete.