Verika - Verifica P.IVA, Codice Fiscale e IBAN

Cerca comune italiano

cerca_comune

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trova un comune italiano per nome (con provincia opzionale) o per codice catastale, dalla tabella ISTAT locale. Restituisce denominazione canonica, provincia, regione, codice catastale e codice ISTAT.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nome`	No	Nome del comune, es. 'Atri'
`provincia`	No	Sigla provincia per disambiguare, es. 'TE'
`codice_catastale`	No	Codice catastale, es. 'A488' (Atri)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comune`	No
`errore`	No
`omonimi`	No	Comuni con lo stesso nome, se la provincia non basta a sceglierne uno
`regione`	No
`tabella`	No
`trovato`	Yes
`provincia`	No
`codice_istat`	No
`codice_catastale`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / codice_catastale / description
```
Previous value: -"Codice catastale, es. 'A562'"New value: +"Codice catastale, es. 'A488' (Atri)"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / omonimi

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comuni con lo stesso nome, se la provincia non basta a sceglierne uno",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {
+      "codice_catastale": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "provincia": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "provincia",
+      "codice_catastale"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the source as a local ISTAT table (offline lookup, authoritative canonical formatting) rather than repeating the annotations; it is silent only on not-found behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is searched and how, the second enumerates the returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing ordered poorly.

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?

An output schema exists, so the field list in the description is a convenience rather than a necessity, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a 3-parameter optional-argument lookup this is nearly complete; only the not-found/multiple-match behavior is left unstated.

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% and every parameter has an example (e.g. 'Atri', 'TE', 'A488'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the lookup-by-name-or-cadastral-code framing and the optionality of provincia, matching the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb ("Trova") plus specific resource ("un comune italiano") plus the two lookup keys (nome/provincia, codice catastale) and the data source. None of the sibling tools (validators for fiscal codes, IBANs, VAT, sanctions) does anything similar, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states the two supported query modes and marks provincia as optional, which conveys that it exists to disambiguate homonymous comuni. It does not say what happens if both nome and codice_catastale are supplied, nor what to do when a name matches multiple comuni, so the guidance is clear but without exclusions.

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

All Verika - Verifica P.IVA, Codice Fiscale e IBAN 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.