Korea Business Verify (KBV)

Verify Korean business identity

verify_korean_business

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that a Korean business registration number matches the provided representative name and opening date. Use for KYB / due-diligence before transacting with a Korean company. Returns match result plus current status.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	No	Optional business address to include in the match (maps to NTS b_adr)
`opening_date`	Yes	Business opening date in YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. "2015-03-02"
`business_number`	Yes	10-digit Korean business registration number; hyphens/spaces allowed
`representative_name`	Yes	Representative (CEO) name as registered, e.g. "홍길동"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cache`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`tax_type`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`closed_date`	Yes
`identity_match`	Yes
`business_number`	Yes
`status_code_raw`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / closed_date / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / closed_date / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns a match result plus current status, but with an output schema present that is partly redundant, and it omits key behavior: whether a non-matching or unregistered number returns match=false versus an error, and what "current status" values mean.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: the verification semantics come first, the usage context second. Nothing is padded or repeated from annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. What's still missing is the mismatch/not-found behavior and the meaning of the status field, which an agent would want before relying on the result for a due-diligence decision.

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%, including format hints (YYYY-MM-DD, 10-digit with hyphens allowed) and the NTS b_adr mapping for address, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the three required matching inputs and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (verify), resource (Korean business registration number), and the matching criteria (representative name + opening date), which distinguishes it from find_korean_business (lookup) and check_korean_business_status (status only). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

"Use for KYB / due-diligence before transacting with a Korean company" gives a clear decision context for when to reach for this tool. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are named, e.g. it doesn't say to use check_korean_business_status when only status is needed or check_korean_business_batch for multiple numbers.

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

All Korea Business Verify (KBV) 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.