validate_codice_fiscaleValida un Codice Fiscale italiano (formato + carattere di controllo, con gestione omocodia). Gratis (€0), deterministico, nessun login richiesto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codice_fiscale | Yes | Il Codice Fiscale da validare (es. RSSMRA85T10A562S). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'deterministico' reinforces idempotency, 'nessun login richiesto' clarifies auth requirements, and 'Gratis' indicates cost. These details go beyond annotations.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single informative sentence. Every word adds value: the action, resource specifics, key traits (deterministic, no login, free). No filler.
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?
The description lacks any explanation of the return value or output format. For a validation tool, agents need to know whether it returns a boolean, error messages, or validated data. Without an output schema, the description should compensate but does not.
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 input schema includes a 100% descriptive parameter description. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Valida' and the resource 'Codice Fiscale italiano', adding specifics like format, check digit, and homocody management. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate_codice_fiscale'.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_partita_iva, validate_iban). However, the name and description strongly imply its usage for Italian tax code validation, providing some implicit guidance.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, targeting specific tax/compliance operations. The pair 'parse_fatturapa' and 'parse_verify_fatturapa' are similar but differentiated by the verification step. The detailed descriptions further reduce ambiguity.
Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with prefixes like 'calc_', 'validate_', 'lookup_', 'parse_', 'nis2_', etc. Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'compose_f24' vs 'calc_forfettario', 'intrastat_compose' vs 'intrastat_periodicity') but overall the pattern is clear.
With 23 tools, the set is on the heavier side for a single server, covering many subdomains of Italian tax and compliance. While each tool seems purposeful, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15), making it slightly overwhelming.
The tool surface covers a wide array of Italian tax and compliance needs: tax calculations, F24 composition, INTRASTAT, ATECO, NIS2, FatturaPA, and validations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no IRPEF or IRAP calculators), but the core tax workflows are well supported.