ean13_checkValidate an EAN-13 barcode by its mod-10 checksum (odd positions x1, even positions x3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 13-digit EAN-13 barcode; spaces/dashes allowed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| normalized | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is only a checksum-level validation with specific weighting, not a full GS1 semantic or registry check.
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?
A single sentence conveys the action, target, and algorithm with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only, idempotent validator with an output schema, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs: input format, validation method, and safety profile. Nothing important is missing.
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 already fully documents the one parameter (13-digit EAN-13 barcode; spaces/dashes allowed), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter behavior beyond the checksum algorithm, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Validate'), a specific resource ('EAN-13 barcode'), and the exact checksum method (mod-10 with odd positions x1, even positions x3). This distinguishes it from generic checksum validators like luhn_check and other identifier checks.
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 clearly implies the intended use case: validating EAN-13 barcodes by checksum. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the barcode-specific wording is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.
Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.
With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.
For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.