USE THIS to verify a Croatian OIB (Osobni identifikacijski broj / personal identification number) before relying on it. Checks the 11-digit form and the ISO 7064 MOD 11,10 check digit. Validates structure only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| oib | Yes | The 11-digit Croatian OIB (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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. Description adds that it validates structure only, providing transparency about scope. 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?
Two sentences, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: first tells when to use, second explains what it checks. Highly efficient.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose, validation method, and scope. Does not specify return format but is adequate for a validator 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 describes parameter as '11-digit Croatian OIB (spaces ignored)'. Description adds detail about validation algorithm (ISO 7064 MOD 11,10), exceeding schema coverage. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, so extra context earns a 4.
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?
Clearly states it validates Croatian OIB (personal identification number) by checking 11-digit form and ISO 7064 check digit. Distinguishes from sibling validation tools by specifying the exact standard and country.
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 instructs 'USE THIS to verify a Croatian OIB before relying on it', indicating when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but context of sibling tools implies uniqueness.
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.