USE THIS to verify a Turkish T.C. Kimlik No (TCKN / national identity number) before relying on it — never assume 11 digits are valid. Checks both algorithmic check digits and the leading-digit rule. Validates structure only; does NOT confirm the number is registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tckn | Yes | The 11-digit TCKN (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 already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral detail that it checks algorithmic digits and the leading-digit rule, and explicitly states it does not confirm registration. 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 concise: three sentences front-loading the imperative usage, followed by scope details and limitations. 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?
The description covers purpose, limitations, and parameter format well, but lacks mention of the return value or output format. Given no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the response structure.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing the parameter format and that spaces are ignored. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'verify', the resource 'Turkish T.C. Kimlik No', and specifies it checks both algorithmic check digits and leading-digit rule. It also distinguishes that it only validates structure, not registration, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before relying on a TCKN and warns not to assume 11 digits are valid. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools include many other validators, so the context is clear. Missing a 'when not to use' statement.
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.