Skip to main content
Glama

MM7 Company MCP

check_its_subscription

Check 1C:ITS subscription status by product registration number. Same Partner API as the form on mm7.ru.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reg_number": "<reg_number>"
    },
    "name": "check_its_subscription"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reg_numberYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that this is a read-only lookup, no auth/partner-key requirement, no rate-limit or error behavior. The mm7.ru provenance line is mildly useful context but not a behavioral trait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; nothing is buried or padded. The second sentence on API provenance is of marginal invocation value but is cheap and oriented the reader.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the input is a single required string. However, with no annotations the description leaves the read-only nature and access requirements unstated, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no title beyond 'Reg Number'. The description compensates by clarifying it is a *product registration number* used to look up the subscription, which is more than the schema gives, but adds no format, source, or example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('1C:ITS subscription status') plus the scoping key ('by product registration number'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the list_its_products and quote_its_renewal siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when the task is ambiguous (e.g. get_contract_status).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only context offered is provenance ('Same Partner API as the form on mm7.ru'), which does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus the many other ITS-related siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources