Validate Australian ABNs and ACNs, and verify ABNs live against the Australian Business Register.
Scored across 3 tools
validate_abn and verify_abn both target ABNs with near-synonymous verbs, which is a latent confusion risk, but the descriptions explicitly differentiate format/checksum checks from registry verification. validate_acn is clearly distinguished by its distinct identifier type.
All three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (validate_abn, validate_acn, verify_abn) with snake_case and identical verb conventions across tools.
Three tools is on the low end but well-scoped for a narrow identity-verification purpose, with each tool earning its place. No filler or redundant tools.
The surface covers ABN format validation, ABN registry verification, and ACN format validation, but there is no verify_acn equivalent for checking a company against the ASIC register, a notable gap that leaves an asymmetric, incomplete lifecycle.
Validate the format and checksum of an Australian Business Number (ABN). This does not confirm that the ABN is registered or active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abn | Yes | Australian Business Number. Spaces and hyphens are accepted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose an important limitation: it does not confirm that the ABN is registered or active. This prevents the agent from over-trusting results. It does not describe return behavior or side effects, but the validation action is inherently read-only and the boundary statement is the most critical behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action and target, the second adds a crucial caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines scope, accepted input behavior, and key limitations. It omits an explicit return-type description, but the tool name and purpose make a boolean/validation result strongly inferable, so this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the abn parameter fully, including that spaces and hyphens are accepted. The description adds only the 'checksum' concept, which is behavior rather than parameter detail, so it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema-covered parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Validate') and precise resource ('format and checksum of an ABN'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_acn by targeting ABN rather than ACN, and explicitly clarifies what it does not do (confirm registration/active status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use for syntactic/checksum validation of an ABN, not for legal or registration status verification. However, it never explicitly names when to use this tool over validate_acn or states selection criteria between the two siblings, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate the format and checksum of an Australian Company Number (ACN). This does not confirm that the company is registered or active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acn | Yes | Australian Company Number. Spaces and hyphens are accepted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key limitation (does not confirm registration), but does not describe the output format (e.g., boolean, error behavior) or edge cases. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. The primary action is stated first, followed by a crucial limitation. All information is essential and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation. It omits explicit return value behavior, but that is inferable from the verb 'validate'. The description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description already covers the 'acn' parameter fully, including the fact that spaces and hyphens are accepted. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'validate' and the specific resource 'Australian Company Number', and specifies what is validated ('format and checksum'). It also explicitly distinguishes from registration confirmation, which differentiates it from a broader lookup tool and from the sibling validate_abn.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for format/checksum validation only, and the caveat 'This does not confirm that the company is registered or active' gives clear context that it should not be used for registration checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond that caveat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify an Australian Business Number (ABN) against the Australian Business Register. Returns checksum validity, registry match status, and available registry details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abn | Yes | Australian Business Number to verify against the Australian Business Register. Spaces and hyphens are accepted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (checksum validity, registry match status, registry details), which implies a live registry call, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return description. Slightly terse given the nearby similarly named siblings it could have referenced.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back. The remaining gap is routing guidance against validate_abn/validate_acn, which matters because the names are easily confused.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no formatting guidance (e.g., 11-digit normalization) beyond what the schema already states about accepting spaces and hyphens.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Verify) and resource (ABN) and scope (against the Australian Business Register), which implicitly distinguishes it from a pure checksum validator. However, it never names or contrasts the sibling tools validate_abn or validate_acn, so the agent must infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'against the Australian Business Register' suggests an external registry lookup, hinting at when this is preferred over a local validation. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative despite two closely related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
verify_abnvalidate_abnvalidate_acnSearch Australian businesses and look up ABN and GST records from the Australian Business Register.
Australian identifier validation, GST arithmetic, fuzzy name matching, OFAC sanctions screening.
Australian address autocomplete, validation and geocoding from G-NAF, the national register.
Verify ANZ businesses against government registers. Surfaces cross-jurisdictional findings.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.