USE THIS to verify a Spanish DNI or NIE before relying on it — do not guess the control letter. Checks the mod-23 control letter and returns whether it is a DNI or NIE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Spanish DNI (8 digits + letter) or NIE (X/Y/Z + 7 digits + letter). |
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 already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool checks the control letter and returns a classification (DNI/NIE). It does not disclose error behavior or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear. Annotations lower the burden, so score is adequate.
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, front-loaded with 'USE THIS', no redundant words. Every part is informative and 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 simple validator with one parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the tool's purpose, input expectations, and return type (DNI/NIE). No gaps remain.
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 a clear parameter description for 'id'. The description reinforces the control letter check but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'verify' for Spanish DNI/NIE, specifies 'checks the mod-23 control letter' and 'returns whether it is a DNI or NIE'. It distinguishes itself from sibling validators by targeting a specific Spanish document type.
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 a Spanish DNI or NIE' and advises not to guess the control letter. Provides clear context for when to use, though it does not list explicit when-not-to or alternatives; however, the sibling tool names indicate this is specific to Spanish IDs.
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.