USE THIS to verify an Italian Codice Fiscale (personal tax code) before relying on it — do not guess the final check letter. Checks the 16-character format and the mod-26 check character. Validates structure only; does NOT confirm the code is registered with the Agenzia delle Entrate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 16-character Codice Fiscale (spaces ignored, case-insensitive). |
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?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true but no destructive hint. The description adds that it validates structure only (not registration), and mentions the check character algorithm. No contradictions.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description could have explained the return value (e.g., boolean or validation result). It does not, leaving a gap. However, for a simple validation tool, the core purpose is adequately covered.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds meaning: '16-character', 'spaces ignored, case-insensitive', and the importance of not guessing the check letter, which goes beyond the schema description.
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 verifies an Italian Codice Fiscale, specifies the checks (16-character format and mod-26 check character), and distinguishes it from other validation tools in the sibling list.
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?
Explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify' and warns against guessing the check letter. Also clarifies it does not confirm registration, setting expectations. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use it, but the sibling context makes the use case clear.
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.