Which integrations are available for this server?

The MCP server is distributed as a Python package on PyPI under the name 'bach-b2bhint', allowing installation via pip.

How do I use B2Bhint MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@B2Bhint MCP Server search for Tesla company details in the US" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

B2Bhint MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

B2Bhint MCP Server

English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文

用于访问 B2Bhint API 的 MCP 服务器。

🚀 使用 EMCP 平台快速体验

EMCP 是一个强大的 MCP 服务器管理平台，让您无需手动配置即可快速使用各种 MCP 服务器！

快速开始：

🌐 访问 EMCP 平台
📝 注册并登录账号
🎯 进入 MCP 广场，浏览所有可用的 MCP 服务器
🔍 搜索或找到本服务器（bach-b2bhint）
🎉 点击 "安装 MCP" 按钮
✅ 完成！即可在您的应用中使用

EMCP 平台优势：

✨ 零配置：无需手动编辑配置文件
🎨 可视化管理：图形界面轻松管理所有 MCP 服务器
🔐 安全可靠：统一管理 API 密钥和认证信息
🚀 一键安装：MCP 广场提供丰富的服务器选择
📊 使用统计：实时查看服务调用情况

立即访问 EMCP 平台 开始您的 MCP 之旅！

Related MCP server: mcp-finnish-companies

简介

这是一个 MCP 服务器，用于访问 B2Bhint API。

PyPI 包名: bach-b2bhint
版本: 1.0.0
传输协议: stdio

安装

从 PyPI 安装:

pip install bach-b2bhint

从源码安装:

pip install -e .

运行

方式 1: 使用 uvx（推荐，无需安装）

# 运行（uvx 会自动安装并运行）
uvx --from bach-b2bhint bach_b2bhint

# 或指定版本
uvx --from bach-b2bhint@latest bach_b2bhint

方式 2: 直接运行（开发模式）

python server.py

方式 3: 安装后作为命令运行

# 安装
pip install bach-b2bhint

# 运行（命令名使用下划线）
bach_b2bhint

配置

API 认证

此 API 需要认证。请设置环境变量:

export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"

环境变量

变量名	说明	必需
`API_KEY`	API 密钥	是
`PORT`	不适用	否
`HOST`	不适用	否

在 Cursor 中使用

编辑 Cursor MCP 配置文件 ~/.cursor/mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bach-b2bhint": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["--from", "bach-b2bhint", "bach_b2bhint"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

在 Claude Desktop 中使用

编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件 claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bach-b2bhint": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["--from", "bach-b2bhint", "bach_b2bhint"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

可用工具

此服务器提供以下工具:

`search_person_by_name`

Search for a person by parameters will return a list of persons that match your query

端点: GET /api/v1/rapidapi/person/search

参数:

q (string) 必需: Example value: Elon Musk
countryCode (string): Example value: us

`get_company_full_data`

The Get company details endpoint will return all full company data, including company contacts, financial reports and other data

端点: GET /api/v1/rapidapi/company/full

参数:

internationalNumber (string) 必需: Example value: 0458.780.306
countryCode (string) 必需: Example value: be

`search_company_by_name`

Search for a company by parameters will return a list of companies that match your query

端点: GET /api/v1/rapidapi/company/search

参数:

q (string) 必需: Company name or number or other identifiers
countryCode (string): ISO2 country code

`get_company_basic_data`

The Get company details endpoint will return all basic company data on B2BHint.

端点: GET /api/v1/rapidapi/company/basic

参数:

internationalNumber (string) 必需: Example value: 0458.780.306
countryCode (string) 必需: Example value: be

`search_company_by_email`

Search for a company by email will return a list of companies that match the selected email

端点: GET /api/v1/rapidapi/company/search-by-email

参数:

email (string) 必需: Example value: rsing@tesla.com

技术栈

传输协议: stdio
HTTP 客户端: httpx

许可证

MIT License - 详见 LICENSE 文件。

开发

此服务器由 API-to-MCP 工具生成。

版本: 1.0.0

Available Tools

5 tools

get_company_basic_dataC

The Get company details endpoint will return all basic company data on B2BHint.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`internationalNumber`	Yes	Example value: 0458.780.306
`countryCode`	Yes	Example value: be

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'will return all basic company data,' lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with two required parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying 'basic' vs. 'full').

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic company data' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool fetches data based on these inputs, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'return all basic company data on B2BHint.' It specifies the verb ('return') and resource ('company data'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_full_data' beyond the 'basic' qualifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'basic company data' but doesn't clarify what distinguishes it from 'get_company_full_data' or when to choose one over the other, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

get_company_full_dataC

The Get company details endpoint will return all full company data, including company contacts, financial reports and other data

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`internationalNumber`	Yes	Example value: 0458.780.306
`countryCode`	Yes	Example value: be

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is a read operation ('return') but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'other data' might include. The description is too vague about the tool's behavior beyond the basic retrieval claim.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that's reasonably concise but could be more front-loaded. It wastes words on redundant phrasing ('Get company details endpoint will return') and could more efficiently state the core functionality. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions 'contacts, financial reports and other data' but doesn't specify what format this data comes in, whether it's paginated, or what 'other data' includes. For a tool that presumably returns comprehensive company information, more detail about the response structure would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (internationalNumber and countryCode). It doesn't explain how these parameters relate to retrieving company data or provide context about their usage.

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 purpose: retrieving full company data including contacts, financial reports, and other data. It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'return') and identifies the resource ('company details'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_basic_data' beyond implying 'full' vs 'basic' data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_company_basic_data' for basic data or the search tools for finding companies. The description implies it returns comprehensive data but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites.

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

search_company_by_emailC

Search for a company by email will return a list of companies that match the selected email

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Example value: rsing@tesla.com

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of companies that match the selected email,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no matches are found. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details.

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 a single, straightforward sentence: 'Search for a company by email will return a list of companies that match the selected email.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Searches for companies by email and returns a list of matches'), but it's efficient with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return type ('a list of companies'), but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or error handling. For a simple search tool, this might suffice, but gaps in transparency and guidelines prevent a higher score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'email' parameter documented as 'Example value: rsing@tesla.com.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or search logic. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 purpose: 'Search for a company by email will return a list of companies that match the selected email.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (company), and key parameter (email). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_company_by_name' beyond the parameter difference, which is implied but not stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_company_by_name' or 'get_company_basic_data', nor does it specify scenarios where email-based search is preferred over name-based search or direct retrieval. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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

search_company_by_nameC

Search for a company by parameters will return a list of companies that match your query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Company name or number or other identifiers
`countryCode`	No	ISO2 country code

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 mentions returning a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and result. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming key parameters or distinguishing from siblings, but it's concise overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with potential complexity (e.g., result format, error handling), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains, how results are ordered, or any limitations. For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (q and countryCode) well. The description adds minimal value beyond implying parameters exist, but doesn't provide additional semantics like search behavior or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool searches for companies by parameters and returns a list, which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'parameters' specifically means (only implied by the schema), and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like search_company_by_email or search_person_by_name. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like get_company_basic_data or get_company_full_data, nor does it explain when to use search_company_by_email instead. There's no context for exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

search_person_by_nameC

Search for a person by parameters will return a list of persons that match your query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Example value: Elon Musk
`countryCode`	No	Example value: us

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a list but doesn't specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no matches. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a search tool.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like the tool name or specific parameters to enhance clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (q and countryCode) with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining query syntax or countryCode usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool searches for persons by parameters and returns a list, which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what 'parameters' specifically means (only implied by the schema), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_company_by_name, which perform similar searches but for different entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'parameters' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or clarify if this is the primary person-search method versus other potential options.

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.

5 tool updatesv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026
- First observedget_company_basic_data
- First observedget_company_full_data
- First observedsearch_company_by_email
- First observedsearch_company_by_name
- First observedsearch_person_by_name

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: get_company_basic_data and get_company_full_data target different levels of company detail, while the three search tools each target different search criteria (email, company name, person name). The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_company_basic_data, get_company_full_data, search_company_by_email, search_company_by_name, and search_person_by_name. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its apparent domain of B2B company and person data retrieval. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct operations (basic/full data retrieval and multiple search types), avoiding bloat or thinness.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides strong coverage for data retrieval and search in the B2B domain, with no dead ends. A minor gap exists in update/delete operations (e.g., no tools for modifying company data), but agents can likely work around this given the server's focus on querying.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

nordic-data
cloud.nordicdata
Global B2B intelligence for AI agents: 35M+ companies, 1.6M sanctions, KYB pack. 78 tools.
Government Data Open Data
2
FullEnrichOAuth
io.github.FullEnrich
Search B2B contacts, enrich verified emails and phone numbers, and export results.
CRM Search
14
mcp-prontoOAuth
io.github.ProntoHQ
B2B sales intelligence: find companies, extract leads, enrich contacts with emails/phones.
CRM Customer Data Platforms
2
mcp-explorium AOAuth
ai.explorium
Access live company and contact data from Explorium's AgentSource B2B platform.
Search Customer Data Platforms
221

Related MCP Servers

MCP Recherche d'entreprises
Government Data Search
yoanbernabeu
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
Enables interaction with the French business search API from data.gouv.fr, allowing users to search for French companies by text or geographical criteria and access essential business information.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-02-26 10:40 UTC)
2
18
19
MIT
mcp-finnish-companies
Government Data Open Data Search
robobobby
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides access to the Finnish company registry (PRH/YTJ) to search for businesses and retrieve detailed information using Business IDs. It enables users to perform industry-specific searches and track recent company registrations through official government open data.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-20 00:02 UTC)
13
MIT
OpenDirectories MCP Server
Search Research & Data Open Data
BigJai
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Enables searching 12M+ verified businesses across 10 countries and 19 directories, with tools for lead generation, competitive analysis, and market research.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-02 12:19 UTC)
MIT
Prospeo MCP Serverofficial
CRM Search
prospeo-v2
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
Enables AI tools to search and enrich B2B leads, including finding professional emails, company profiles, and filtering people and companies by various criteria.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-03 00:24 UTC)
5
227
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Business Directory Search and Update Tool for SEO

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-b2bhint'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

B2Bhint MCP Server

🚀 使用 EMCP 平台快速体验

快速开始：

EMCP 平台优势：

简介

安装

从 PyPI 安装:

从源码安装:

运行

方式 1: 使用 uvx（推荐，无需安装）

方式 2: 直接运行（开发模式）

方式 3: 安装后作为命令运行

配置

API 认证

环境变量

在 Cursor 中使用

在 Claude Desktop 中使用

可用工具

search_person_by_name

get_company_full_data

search_company_by_name

get_company_basic_data

search_company_by_email

技术栈

许可证

开发

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Prospeo MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`search_person_by_name`

`get_company_full_data`

`search_company_by_name`

`get_company_basic_data`

`search_company_by_email`