Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Verika - Verifica P.IVA, Codice Fiscale e IBAN

by io.github.JackPons
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Valida partita IVA (formale)

valida_partita_iva
Read-onlyIdempotent

Controllo formale e offline di una partita IVA italiana: lunghezza, cifra di controllo, codice ufficio. Non dice se la partita IVA è attiva: per quello usa verifica_partita_iva.

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": {
      "partita_iva": "<partita_iva>"
    },
    "name": "valida_partita_iva"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partita_ivaYesPartita IVA, con o senza prefisso IT, spazi o punti, es. 'IT 12345678903'

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
inputYes
erroreNo
validaYestrue se supera il controllo formale
ufficioNoCodice ufficio (cifre 8-10)
normalizzataYesPartita IVA senza prefisso IT, spazi o punti

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / partita_iva / description
      Previous value: -"Partita IVA, con o senza prefisso IT, spazi o punti"New value: +"Partita IVA, con o senza prefisso IT, spazi o punti, es. 'IT 12345678903'"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the check is 'offline' and 'formal only' — i.e. it does not query the registry for active status — which goes beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe return shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 tightly written sentences. The scope statement is front-loaded and the negative constraint plus redirect to the sibling immediately follows, with zero filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter, read-only validation tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope boundary, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the single parameter already documents accepted formats (with/without IT prefix, spaces, dots). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (formal offline validation of an Italian VAT number) and enumerates exactly what is checked: length, check digit, office code. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `verifica_partita_iva`, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both the when (formal/offline structural check) and the when-not (it does not tell you whether the VAT number is active), and names the alternative tool to use for that case. Nothing is left to inference.

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 toolsInspect
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