MM7 Company MCP

request_pin_codes_state

Request current PIN-code state from portal.1c.ru (active/cancelled/free). Client API key required. Requires captcha from get_1c_license_captcha. Result is emailed by 1C — not returned in the tool response body.

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>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "captcha_id": "<captcha_id>",
      "captcha": "<captcha>"
    },
    "name": "request_pin_codes_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes
`captcha`	Yes
`captcha_id`	Yes
`reg_number`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the auth requirement (client API key), the captcha dependency, and critically that the result is emailed by 1C rather than returned in the response body. It does not state whether the call has side effects or whether there are rate limits, but the out-of-band delivery note is high-value disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the possible states, then prerequisites, then the surprising output behavior. No filler; every clause adds information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description correctly flags that the real result arrives by email instead of in the body. Auth, prerequisite tool, and delivery path are all covered; only parameter-level detail and side-effect/rate-limit behavior are missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains what reg_number or email represent or how captcha/captcha_id pair up. It only indirectly signals that captcha comes from get_1c_license_captcha and that email is the delivery address; the remaining parameter semantics are undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (request the current PIN-code state) and even enumerates the possible state values (active/cancelled/free), which is unusually concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling request_reserve_pin_code, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States the preconditions for calling it: a client API key and a captcha obtained from get_1c_license_captcha, naming the sibling tool to call first. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of alternatives, but the prerequisite routing is clear.

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

All MM7 Company MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?