USE THIS to verify a GLN (GS1 Global Location Number — identifies a company/site/location in supply chains and EDI) before relying on it. Checks the 13-digit GS1 mod-10 check digit and returns the GS1 prefix's issuing country. Validates structure only; does not confirm the location is registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gln | Yes | The 13-digit GLN; spaces and dashes are 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 already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it only validates structure, not registration, which is valuable context. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'USE THIS', with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple input (one string parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it checks, what it returns (issuing country), and its limitation (no registration confirmation). It is complete for a validation tool.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description, and the description adds that 'spaces and dashes are ignored,' enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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 it verifies a GLN (Global Location Number) before relying on it, specifying it checks the check digit and returns the issuing country. It distinguishes from sibling validation tools by naming the specific identifier standard.
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?
It explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a GLN... before relying on it,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list implies it's for GLN exclusively.
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.