Skip to main content
Glama

Korea Business Verify (KBV)

Batch check Korean business status

check_korean_business_batch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a list of up to 100 Korean businesses in a single call by their 10-digit business registration numbers (사업자등록번호). Returns one entry per input number (order preserved) with registration status, tax type, and any public-procurement debarment ("부정당업자 제재") on record — a company can be perfectly active and still barred from public contracts. The summary counts how many are currently debarred. Use this for supplier, vendor or customer list screening instead of repeated single checks. Recently checked numbers may be answered from a cache up to 24 hours old (marked "cache": true). Sources: Korea National Tax Service, Public Procurement Service.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
business_numbersYes1-100 Korean business registration numbers; hyphens/spaces allowed

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes
summaryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / closed_date / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / closed_date / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / sanctions
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "active": {
      +        "type": "boolean"
      +      },
      +      "begins_on": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "ends_on": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "institution": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "law": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "status": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "active"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary / properties / sanctioned
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses a 24-hour cache with a per-entry 'cache': true marker, the 100-item cap, preserved input ordering, and the non-obvious domain behavior that a company can be active yet still debarred. Source attribution (NTS, PPS) gives the agent grounds for trust and citation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, scale and input format in the first clause, then layers output shape, the debarment caveat, the alternative-usage hint, and the cache caveat — each sentence adding distinct information. Dense but zero redundancy.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still characterizes the return shape (one entry per input, order preserved, fields plus a debarment count) and pre-empts the main interpretive trap of an active-but-debarred company. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond 'array of strings': it identifies the value as a Korean business registration number (사업자등록번호), which tells the agent what identifier the caller must supply. The hyphen/space tolerance detail merely restates the schema.

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 (screen), resource (Korean businesses), input format (10-digit 사업자등록번호) and a hard limit of 100 in one call. The phrase 'instead of repeated single checks' distinguishes it from the sibling single-check tool check_korean_business_status without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'supplier, vendor or customer list screening' and rules out the loop-of-single-checks pattern. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (check_korean_business_status) or stating the size threshold at which to switch back, which would have earned a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.