USE THIS to verify a Swiss social-insurance number (AHV/AVS, 756.…) before relying on it. Checks the 13-digit form starting 756 and the EAN-13 check digit. Validates structure only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ahv | Yes | The 13-digit Swiss AHV/AVS number (dots ignored). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint is consistent. The description adds that validation is structural only, which is key behavioral info. No contradictions. Could mention side effects but none expected for a read-only validator.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with 'USE THIS', and each sentence adds value. No verbosity. Perfectly concise.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage context, and limitations (structure only). Without an output schema, the return format is missing but likely a boolean, which is standard. Overall sufficient for a simple validator.
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 single parameter 'ahv' has a schema description. The tool description adds context about the 13-digit form starting with 756 and the check digit, reinforcing the schema. No further parameter details needed.
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 tool validates a Swiss social-insurance number (AHV/AVS) and specifies it checks the 13-digit form starting with 756 and the EAN-13 check digit. It uniquely identifies the tool among many sibling validation tools.
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 advises using this tool before relying on an AHV number and clarifies it only validates structure. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, the context is clear given the sibling tools are different validators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.