get4agent

Validate a Kazakhstan IIN/BIN

validate_iin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a Kazakhstan IIN/BIN (real national checksum) + parse structure (person: birth date/sex; entity: registration). Free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "iin": "<iin>"
    },
    "name": "validate_iin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`iin`	Yes	12 digits, e.g. 940101300123 (IIN for a person, BIN for an entity)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / iin / description
```
Added value: +"12 digits, e.g. 940101300123 (IIN for a person, BIN for an entity)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / iin / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[0-9]{12}$"
```
First observedAug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description's added value is in disclosing what the call produces: checksum verification plus parsed structure (birth date/sex for persons, registration for entities). That is meaningful output-content disclosure given there is no output schema. It does not say what happens on an invalid IIN (error vs. a valid=false result), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the secondary parse behavior and cost note. The '+'-joined clauses and parentheticals are slightly telegraphic, and the trailing 'Free.' reads as an appended tag rather than part of a structured statement, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple single-parameter validator with no output schema, the description covers input expectations, the validation method, and the shape of the parsed result. Only the invalid-input behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a tool this small.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 12-digit format, the regex pattern, and even a worked example distinguishing IIN from BIN. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — validating a Kazakhstan IIN/BIN — and even characterizes the validation method ('real national checksum') plus the secondary parse behavior. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling validate_kz_iban, so an agent must infer the IIN-vs-IBAN distinction from the resource name alone.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the operation name (you validate an IIN when you have a 12-digit Kazakhstan identifier), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance, and no mention of what a failed validation means for next steps. 'Free' hints at cost tradeoffs but is not real usage guidance.

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

All get4agent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?