AR Tools

Validar CBU/CVU

validar_cbu

Valida un CBU o CVU argentino de 22 dígitos: chequea ambos dígitos verificadores e identifica la entidad bancaria (o billetera virtual si es CVU), la sucursal y el número de cuenta. Costo: 1 crédito(s).

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": {
      "cbu": "<cbu>"
    },
    "name": "validar_cbu"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cbu`	Yes	CBU/CVU de 22 dígitos, con o sin espacios

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the name: both check digits are verified, bank/wallet identity is resolved, and each call costs 1 credit. However, it says nothing about what happens on an invalid CBU (error vs. negative result), whether results are cached, or any auth/quota constraints beyond the per-call cost.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the verification and output details, with the cost tacked on at the end. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return contents (bank entity, branch, account number). The main remaining gap is failure behavior for malformed or invalid CBUs, which an agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'cbu' parameter already documents length bounds and space tolerance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the 22-digit rule and clarifies that CVU (wallet) inputs are accepted, but adds no new formatting or edge-case detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb ('Valida') and resource ('CBU o CVU argentino de 22 dígitos') and enumerates what is checked and returned (dígitos verificadores, entidad bancaria o billetera virtual, sucursal, número de cuenta). The resource is unambiguously distinct from validar_cuit or normalizar_telefono_ar, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it holds a 22-digit CBU/CVU needing validation. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of the CUIT sibling as an alternative, and no prerequisite guidance. The credit cost disclosure does help the agent weigh the call.

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

All AR Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?