USE THIS to verify a Czech or Slovak rodné číslo (birth number) before relying on it. Checks the modern 10-digit form's mod-11 rule (9-digit pre-1954 numbers have no check digit). Validates structure only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rc | Yes | The 10-digit rodné číslo (slash/spaces 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Validates structure only.' It adds behavioral details about the mod-11 rule and the exception for pre-1954 numbers, which go beyond the annotation. 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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the imperative 'USE THIS' for quick scanning. Every sentence adds necessary information: action, rule, and caveat.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the validation logic and structure. It does not explicitly state the return format, but for a validation tool, the behavior (checks validity) is clear. Slightly more detail on output would improve completeness.
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 'rc' has a schema description (100% coverage). The tool description adds meaning by explaining the validation logic (mod-11 rule, pre-1954 handling), which is not present in the schema. This enriches the parameter's context.
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 Czech or Slovak rodné číslo (birth number). It specifies the validation rule for 10-digit forms and notes pre-1954 numbers. This precisely identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling national ID validators.
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 begins with 'USE THIS to verify... before relying on it,' providing clear context for when to use. It implies the tool is for structural validation only, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives among the many sibling validation tools.
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.